A Review of Methods for Trustworthy AI in Medical Imaging: The FUTURE-AI Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and the vast data generated by modern clinical systems have driven the development of AI solutions in medical imaging, encompassing image reconstruction, segmentation, diagnosis, and treatment planning. Despite these successes and potential, many stakeholders worry about the risks and ethical implications of imaging AI, viewing it as complex, opaque, and challenging to understand, use, and trust in critical clinical applications. The FUTURE-AI guideline for trustworthy AI in healthcare was established based on six guiding principles: Fairness, Universality, Traceability, Usability, Robustness, and Explainability. Through international consensus, a set of recommendations was defined, covering the entire lifecycle of medical AI tools, from design, development, and validation to regulation, deployment, and monitoring. In this paper, we describe how these specific recommendations can be instantiated in the domain of medical imaging, providing an overview of current best practices along with guidelines and concrete metrics on how those recommendations could be met, offering a valuable resource to the international medical imaging community.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".