How to apply evidence-based practice to the use of artificial intelligence in radiology (EBRAI) using the data algorithm training output (DATO) method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As the number of radiology artificial intelligence (AI) papers increases, there are new challenges for reviewing the AI literature as well as differences to be aware of, for those familiar with the clinical radiology literature. We aim to introduce a tool to aid in this process. METHODS: In evidence-based practise (EBP), you must Ask, Search, Appraise, Apply and Evaluate to come to an evidence-based decision. The bottom-up evidence-based radiology (EBR) method allows for a systematic way of choosing the correct radiological investigation or treatment. Just as the population intervention comparison outcome (PICO) method is an established means of asking an answerable question; herein, we introduce the data algorithm training output (DATO) method to complement PICO by considering Data, Algorithm, Training and Output in the use of AI to answer the question. RESULTS: We illustrate the DATO method with a worked example concerning bone age assessment from skeletal radiographs. After a systematic search, 17 bone age estimation papers (5 of which externally validated their results) were appraised. The paper with the best DATO metrics found that an ensemble model combining uncorrelated, high performing simple models should achieve error rates comparable to human performance. CONCLUSION: Considering DATO in the application of EBR to AI is a simple systematic approach to this potentially daunting subject. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The growth of AI in radiology means that radiologists and related professionals now need to be able to review not only clinical radiological literature but also research using AI methods. Considering Data, Algorithm, Training and Output in the application of EBR to AI is a simple systematic approach to this potentially daunting subject.
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 | 0.315 | 0.634 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".