Paranoid About Androids: A Review of Robotics in Radiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In tandem with the ever-increasing global population, the demand for diagnostic radiology service provision is on the rise and at a disproportionate rate compared to the number of radiologists available to practice. The current "revolution in robotics" promises to alleviate personnel shortages in many sectors of industry, including medicine. Despite negative depictions of robots in popular culture, their multiple potential benefits cannot be overlooked, in particular when it comes to health service provision. The type of robots used for interventional procedures are largely robotic-assistance devices, such as the Da Vinci surgical robot. Advances have also been made with regards to robots for image-guided percutaneous needle placement, which have demonstrated superior accuracy compared to manual methods. It is likely that artificial intelligence will come to play a key role in the field of robotics and will result in an increase in the levels of robotic autonomy attainable. However, this concept is not without ethical and legal considerations, most notably who is responsible should an error occur; the physician, the robot manufacturer, software engineers, or the robot itself? Efforts have been made to legislate in order to protect against the potentially harmful effects of unexplainable "black-box" decision outputs of artificial intelligence systems. In order to be accepted by patients, studies have shown that the perceived level of trustworthiness and predictability of robots is crucial. Ultimately, effective, widespread implementation of medical robotic systems will be contingent on developers remaining cognizant of factors that increase human acceptance, as well as ensuring compliance with regulations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".