Educational Competencies for Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology may necessitate refinement of the competencies expected of radiologists. There is currently a lack of understanding on what competencies radiology residency programs should ensure their graduates attain related to AI. This study aimed to identify what knowledge, skills, and attitudes are important for radiologists to use AI safely and effectively in clinical practice. METHODS: Following Arksey and O'Malley's methodology, a scoping review was conducted by searching electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and ERIC) for articles published between 2010 and 2024. Two reviewers independently screened articles based on the title and abstract and subsequently by full-text review. Data were extracted using a standardized form to identify the knowledge, skills, and attitudes surrounding AI that may be important for its safe and effective use. RESULTS: Of 5920 articles screened, 49 articles met inclusion criteria. Core competencies were related to AI model development, evaluation, clinical implementation, algorithm bias and handling discrepancies, regulation, ethics, medicolegal issues, and economics of AI. While some papers proposed competencies for radiologists focused on technical development of AI algorithms, other papers centered competencies around clinical implementation and use of AI. CONCLUSION: Current AI educational programming in radiology demonstrates substantial heterogeneity with a lack of consensus on the knowledge, skills, and attitudes for the safe and effective use of AI in radiology. Further research is needed to develop consensus on the core competencies for radiologists to safely and effectively use AI to support the integration of AI training and assessment into residency programs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".