R-AI-diographers: a European survey on perceived impact of AI on professional identity, careers, and radiographers’ roles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Radiographers use advanced medical imaging and radiotherapy (MIRT) equipment. They are also a digitally mature and digitally resilient workforce in healthcare. Artificial intelligence is already changing their clinical practice and roles in data acquisition, post-processing, and workflow management. It is therefore vital to understand the impact of AI on the careers, roles and professional identity of radiographers, as key stakeholders of the digital transformation of healthcare within the medical imaging ecosystem. METHODS: A European radiographer survey, endorsed by the European Federation of Radiographer Societies (EFRS), was distributed online. It was piloted with twelve radiographers and translated into eight languages. Although this study included both qualitative and quantitative results, this paper emphasises the quantitative aspect. RESULTS: A total of 2206 European radiographers have responded from 37 different countries. Despite some concerns around workforce deskilling, future professional identity, and job prospects, participants showed overall optimistic views about the use of AI in healthcare. This was particularly strong for those with prior AI education (mean: 2.15 vs. 1.89; p-value: < 0.001), hands-on experience with AI (correlation: 0.047; p-value: 0.038), from countries with higher digital literacy (mean: 2.00 vs.1.93; p-value: 0.027) and a higher academic level of radiography education (mean: 3.28 vs. 3.15; p-value: 0.002). Men appeared slightly more enthused about the development of technological skills and women about the honing of patient-centred care skills. Finally, interprofessional collaboration was seen as essential not only for the seamless clinical integration of AI but also for supporting patient benefit. CONCLUSION: While AI implementation advances, AI education needs to keep at pace to ensure acceptability, trust, and safe use of this technology by healthcare professionals, minimising their concerns around professional role changes and enabling them to see the opportunities of service transformation. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This paper aims to map out the perceived impact of AI on the professional identity and careers of European radiographers. KEY POINTS: AI is impacting radiographers' clinical practice and changing their professional identity. Despite increasing AI awareness, AI education is still lacking across Europe. AI education is key for AI acceptability and trust by radiographers, which facilitates AI implementation and service transformation.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it