Physician-in-the-Loop Active Learning in Radiology Artificial Intelligence Workflows: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is being explored for a growing range of applications in radiology, including image reconstruction, image segmentation, synthetic image generation, disease classification, worklist triage, and examination scheduling. However, training accurate AI models typically requires substantial amounts of expert-labeled data, which can be time-consuming and expensive to obtain. Active learning offers a potential strategy for mitigating the impacts of such labeling requirements. In contrast with other machine learning approaches used for data-limited situations, active learning aims to produce labeled datasets by identifying the most informative or uncertain data for human annotation, thereby reducing labeling burden to improve model performance under constrained datasets. This Review explores the application of active learning to radiology AI, focusing on the role of active learning in reducing the resources needed to train radiology AI models while enhancing physician-AI interaction and collaboration. We discuss how active learning can be incorporated into radiology workflows to promote physician-in-the-loop AI systems, presenting key active learning concepts and use cases for radiology-based tasks, including through literature-based examples. Finally, we provide summary recommendations for the integration of active learning in radiology workflows while highlighting relevant opportunities, challenges, and future directions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".