American College of Veterinary Radiology and European College of Veterinary Diagnostic Imaging position statement on artificial intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American College of Veterinary Radiology (ACVR) and the European College of Veterinary Diagnostic Imaging (ECVDI) recognize the transformative potential of AI in veterinary diagnostic imaging and radiation oncology. This position statement outlines the guiding principles for the ethical development and integration of AI technologies to ensure patient safety and clinical effectiveness. Artificial intelligence systems must adhere to good machine learning practices, emphasizing transparency, error reporting, and the involvement of clinical experts throughout development. These tools should also include robust mechanisms for secure patient data handling and postimplementation monitoring. The position highlights the critical importance of maintaining a veterinarian in the loop, preferably a board-certified radiologist or radiation oncologist, to interpret AI outputs and safeguard diagnostic quality. Currently, no commercially available AI products for veterinary diagnostic imaging meet the required standards for transparency, validation, or safety. The ACVR and ECVDI advocate for rigorous peer-reviewed research, unbiased third-party evaluations, and interdisciplinary collaboration to establish evidence-based benchmarks for AI applications. Additionally, the statement calls for enhanced education on AI for veterinary professionals, from foundational training in curricula to continuing education for practitioners. Veterinarians are encouraged to disclose AI usage to pet owners and provide alternative diagnostic options as needed. Regulatory bodies should establish guidelines to prevent misuse and protect the profession and patients. The ACVR and ECVDI stress the need for a cautious, informed approach to AI adoption, ensuring these technologies augment, rather than compromise, veterinary 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 | 0.022 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.040 |
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".