Patient Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled: Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping medical imaging with the promise of improved diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. Yet, its ethical and effective adoption depends not only on technical excellence but also on aligning implementation with patient perspectives. This commentary synthesizes emerging research on how patients perceive AI in radiology, expressing cautious optimism, a desire for transparency, and a strong preference for human oversight. Patients consistently view AI as a supportive tool rather than a replacement for clinicians. We argue that centering patient voices is essential to sustaining trust, preserving the human connection in care, and ensuring that AI serves as a truly patient-centered innovation. The path forward requires participatory approaches, ethical safeguards, and transparent communication to ensure that AI enhances, rather than diminishes, the values patients hold most dear.
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 | 0.035 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".