Upskilling or deskilling? Measurable role of an AI-supported training for radiology residents: a lesson from the pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article aims to evaluate the use and effects of an artificial intelligence system supporting a critical diagnostic task during radiology resident training, addressing a research gap in this field. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We involved eight residents evaluating 150 CXRs in three scenarios: no AI, on-demand AI, and integrated-AI. The considered task was the assessment of a multi-regional severity score of lung compromise in patients affected by COVID-19. The chosen artificial intelligence tool, fully integrated in the RIS/PACS, demonstrated superior performance in scoring compared to the average radiologist. Using quantitative metrics and questionnaires, we measured the 'upskilling' effects of using AI support and residents' resilience to 'deskilling,' i.e., their ability to overcome AI errors. RESULTS: Residents required AI in 70% of cases when left free to choose. AI support significantly reduced severity score errors and increased inter-rater agreement by 22%. Residents were resilient to AI errors above an acceptability threshold. Questionnaires indicated high tool usefulness, reliability, and explainability, with a preference for collaborative AI scenarios. CONCLUSION: With this work, we gathered quantitative and qualitative evidence of the beneficial use of a high-performance AI tool that is well integrated into the diagnostic workflow as a training aid for radiology residents. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Balancing educational benefits and deskilling risks is essential to exploit AI systems as effective learning tools in radiology residency programs. Our work highlights metrics for evaluating these aspects. KEY POINTS: Insights into AI tools' effects in radiology resident training are lacking. Metrics were defined to observe residents using an AI tool in different settings. This approach is advisable for evaluating AI tools in radiology training.
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 | 0.013 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".