A Responsible Framework for Applying Artificial Intelligence on Medical Images and Signals at the Point of Care: The PACS-AI Platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine lies in its ability to enhance clinicians' capacity to analyse medical images, thereby improving diagnostic precision and accuracy and thus enhancing current tests. However, the integration of AI within health care is fraught with difficulties. Heterogeneity among health care system applications, reliance on proprietary closed-source software, and rising cybersecurity threats pose significant challenges. Moreover, before their deployment in clinical settings, AI models must demonstrate their effectiveness across a wide range of scenarios and must be validated by prospective studies, but doing so requires testing in an environment mirroring the clinical workflow, which is difficult to achieve without dedicated software. Finally, the use of AI techniques in health care raises significant legal and ethical issues, such as the protection of patient privacy, the prevention of bias, and the monitoring of the device's safety and effectiveness for regulatory compliance. This review describes challenges to AI integration in health care and provides guidelines on how to move forward. We describe an open-source solution that we developed that integrates AI models into the Picture Archives Communication System (PACS), called PACS-AI. This approach aims to increase the evaluation of AI models by facilitating their integration and validation with existing medical imaging databases. PACS-AI may overcome many current barriers to AI deployment and offer a pathway toward responsible, fair, and effective deployment of AI models in health care. In addition, we propose a list of criteria and guidelines that AI researchers should adopt when publishing a medical AI model to enhance standardisation and reproducibility.
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 | 0.027 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".