Changes in Radiology Due to Artificial Intelligence That Can Attract Medical Students to the Specialty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology has grown exponentially in the recent years. One of the primary worries by medical students is that AI will cause the roles of a radiologist to become automated and thus obsolete. Therefore, there is a greater hesitancy by medical students to choose radiology as a specialty. However, it is in this time of change that the specialty needs new thinkers and leaders. In this succinct viewpoint, 2 medical students involved in AI and 2 radiologists specializing in AI or clinical informatics posit that not only are these fears false, but the field of radiology will be transformed in such a way due to AI that there will be novel reasons to choose radiology. These new factors include greater impact on patient care, new space for innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, increased patient contact, becoming master diagnosticians, and greater opportunity for global health initiatives, among others. Finally, since medical students view mentorship as a critical resource when deciding their career path, medical educators must also be cognizant of these changes and not give much credence to the prevalent fearmongering. As the field and practice of radiology continue to undergo significant change due to AI, it is urgent and necessary for the conversation to expand from expert to expert to expert to student. Medical students should be encouraged to choose radiology specifically because of the changes brought on by AI rather than being deterred by it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".