Nuclear medicine technologists practice impacted by AI denoising applications in PET/CT images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Artificial intelligence (AI) in positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can be used to improve image quality when it is useful to reduce the injected activity or the acquisition time. Particular attention must be paid to ensure that users adopt this technological innovation when outcomes can be improved by its use. The aim of this study was to identify the aspects that need to be analysed and discussed to implement an AI denoising PET/CT algorithm in clinical practice, based on the representations of Nuclear Medicine Technologists (NMT) from Western-Switzerland, highlighting the barriers and facilitators associated. METHODS: Two focus groups were organised in June and September 2023, involving ten voluntary participants recruited from all types of medical imaging departments, forming a diverse sample of NMT. The interview guide followed the first stage of the revised model of Ottawa of Research Use. A content analysis was performed following the three-stage approach described by Wanlin. Ethics cleared the study. RESULTS: Clinical practice, workload, knowledge and resources were de 4 themes identified as necessary to be thought before implementing an AI denoising PET/CT algorithm by ten NMT participants (aged 31-60), not familiar with this AI tool. The main barriers to implement this algorithm included workflow challenges, resistance from professionals and lack of education; while the main facilitators were explanations and the availability of support to ask questions such as a "local champion". CONCLUSION: To implement a denoising algorithm in PET/CT, several aspects of clinical practice need to be thought to reduce the barriers to its implementation such as the procedures, the workload and the available resources. Participants emphasised also the importance of clear explanations, education, and support for successful implementation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: To facilitate the implementation of AI tools in clinical practice, it is important to identify the barriers and propose strategies that can mitigate 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".