Sustainability in radiology: position paper and call to action from ACR, AOSR, ASR, CAR, CIR, ESR, ESRNM, ISR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The urgency for climate action is recognized by international government and healthcare organizations, including the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO). Climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution negatively impact all life on earth. All populations are impacted but not equally; the most vulnerable are at the highest risk, an inequity further exacerbated by differences in access to healthcare globally. The delivery of healthcare exacerbates the planetary health crisis through greenhouse gas emissions, largely due to combustion of fossil fuels for medical equipment production and operation, creation of medical and non-medical waste, and contamination of water supplies. As representatives of radiology societies from across the globe who work closely with industry, and both governmental and non-governmental leaders in multiple capacities, we advocate together for urgent, impactful, and measurable changes to the way we deliver care by further engaging our members, policymakers, industry partners, and our patients. Simultaneous challenges, including global health disparities, resource allocation, and access to care, must inform these efforts. Climate literacy should be increasingly added to radiology training programs. More research is required to understand and measure the environmental impact of radiological services and inform mitigation, adaptation and monitoring efforts. Deeper collaboration with industry partners is necessary to support innovations in the supply chain, energy utilization, and circular economy. Many solutions have been proposed and are already available, but we must understand and address barriers to the implementation of current and future sustainable innovations. Finally, there is a compelling need to partner with patients, to ensure that trust in the excellence of clinical care is maintained during the transition to sustainable radiology. By fostering a culture of global cooperation and rapid sharing of solutions amongst the broader imaging community, we can transform radiological practice to mitigate its environmental impact, adapt and develop resilience to current and future climate and environmental threats, and simultaneously improve access to care. KEY POINTS: Question What actions can professional societies take to improve the environmental sustainability of radiology? Findings Better understanding of resource usage in radiology is needed; action is required to address regional and global disparities in access to care which stand to be exacerbated by climate change. Clinical relevance Radiological societies need to advocate for urgent, impactful, and measurable changes to mitigate the environmental impact of radiological practice. Research and education, as well as adaptation and resilience to current and future climate and environmental threats, must be prioritized while simultaneously improving access to care.
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 | 0.030 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.017 |
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".