Effectiveness of AI for Enhancing Computed Tomography Image Quality and Radiation Protection in Radiology: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) presents a promising approach to balancing high image quality with reduced radiation exposure in computed tomography (CT) imaging. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of AI in enhancing CT image quality and lowering radiation doses. METHODS: A thorough literature search was performed across several databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library, with the final update in 2024. We included studies that compared AI-based interventions to conventional CT techniques. The quality of these studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random effect models were used to pool results, and heterogeneity was measured using the I² statistic. Primary outcomes included image quality, CT dose index, and diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: This meta-analysis incorporated 5 clinical validation studies published between 2022 and 2024, totaling 929 participants. Results indicated that AI-based interventions significantly improved image quality (mean difference 0.70, 95% CI 0.43-0.96; P<.001) and showed a positive trend in reducing the CT dose index, though not statistically significant (mean difference 0.47, 95% CI -0.21 to 1.15; P=.18). AI also enhanced image analysis efficiency (odds ratio 1.57, 95% CI 1.08-2.27; P=.02) and demonstrated high accuracy and sensitivity in detecting intracranial aneurysms, with low-dose CT using AI reconstruction showing noninferiority for liver lesion detection. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that AI-based interventions can significantly enhance CT imaging practices by improving image quality and potentially reducing radiation doses, which may lead to better diagnostic accuracy and patient safety. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of studies and the variability in AI algorithms. Further research is needed to clarify AI's impact on radiation reduction and to establish clinical standards.
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 | 0.037 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".