Radiology Staff Experiences With Integrating Artificial Intelligence Into Radiology Practice in a Swedish Hospital: Qualitative Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology has advanced significantly, but research on how it affects the daily work of radiology staff is limited. Objective: This study aimed to explore the experiences of radiology staff on the integration of an AI application in a radiology department in Sweden. This understanding is essential for developing strategies to address potential challenges in AI integration and optimize the use of AI applications in radiology practice. Methods: This qualitative case study was conducted in a single radiology department with 40 employees in 1 hospital in southwestern Sweden. The study concerned the integration of an AI-powered medical imaging software designed to assist radiologists in analyzing and interpreting medical images. Using a qualitative design, interviews were conducted with 7 radiologists (physicians), 4 radiologic technologists, and 1 physician assistant. Their experience within radiology varied between 13 months and 38 years. The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Participants cited numerous strengths and advantages of significant value in integrating AI into radiology practice. Numerous challenges were also revealed in terms of difficulties associated with choosing, acquiring, and deploying the AI application and operational issues in radiology practice. They discussed experiences with diverse strategies to facilitate the integration of AI in radiology and to address various challenges and problems. Conclusions: The findings illustrate how AI integration was experienced in 1 hospital. While not generalizable, the study provides insights that may be useful for similar settings. Radiology staff believed AI integration enhanced decision-making and quality of care, but they encountered challenges from preadoption to routine use of AI in radiology practice. Strategies such as internal training and workflow adaptation facilitated the successful integration of AI in radiology.
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 | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".