Francesca Coppola1, Lorenzo Faggioni2, Daniele Regge3, Andrea Giovagnoni4, Rita Golfieri1, Corrado Bibbolino5, Vittorio Miele6, Emanuele Neri7, Roberto Grassi8. 1. Department of Specialized, Diagnostic and Experimental Medicine (DIMES), S. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 2. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of Translational Research, University of Pisa, Via Roma, 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy. lfaggioni@sirm.org. 3. Department of Radiology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Turin, Italy. 4. Radiology Department, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy. 5. SNR Foundation, Rome, Italy. 6. Department of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy. 7. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of Translational Research, University of Pisa, Via Roma, 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy. 8. Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania, Naples, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the results of a nationwide online survey on artificial intelligence (AI) among radiologist members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM). METHODS AND MATERIALS: All members were invited to the survey as an initiative by the Imaging Informatics Chapter of SIRM. The survey consisted of 13 questions about the participants' demographic information, perceived advantages and issues related to AI implementation in radiological practice, and their overall opinion about AI. RESULTS: In total, 1032 radiologists (equaling 9.5% of active SIRM members for the year 2019) joined the survey. Perceived AI advantages included a lower diagnostic error rate (750/1027, 73.0%) and optimization of radiologists' work (697/1027, 67.9%). The risk of a poorer professional reputation of radiologists compared with non-radiologists (617/1024, 60.3%), and increased costs and workload due to AI system maintenance and data analysis (399/1024, 39.0%) were seen as potential issues. Most radiologists stated that specific policies should regulate the use of AI (933/1032, 90.4%) and were not afraid of losing their job due to it (917/1032, 88.9%). Overall, 77.0% of respondents (794/1032) were favorable to the adoption of AI, whereas 18.0% (186/1032) were uncertain and 5.0% (52/1032) were unfavorable. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists had a mostly positive attitude toward the implementation of AI in their working practice. They were not concerned that AI will replace them, but rather that it might diminish their professional reputation.
PURPOSE: To report the results of a nationwide online survey on artificial intelligence (AI) among radiologist members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM). METHODS AND MATERIALS: All members were invited to the survey as an initiative by the Imaging Informatics Chapter of SIRM. The survey consisted of 13 questions about the participants' demographic information, perceived advantages and issues related to AI implementation in radiological practice, and their overall opinion about AI. RESULTS: In total, 1032 radiologists (equaling 9.5% of active SIRM members for the year 2019) joined the survey. Perceived AI advantages included a lower diagnostic error rate (750/1027, 73.0%) and optimization of radiologists' work (697/1027, 67.9%). The risk of a poorer professional reputation of radiologists compared with non-radiologists (617/1024, 60.3%), and increased costs and workload due to AI system maintenance and data analysis (399/1024, 39.0%) were seen as potential issues. Most radiologists stated that specific policies should regulate the use of AI (933/1032, 90.4%) and were not afraid of losing their job due to it (917/1032, 88.9%). Overall, 77.0% of respondents (794/1032) were favorable to the adoption of AI, whereas 18.0% (186/1032) were uncertain and 5.0% (52/1032) were unfavorable. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists had a mostly positive attitude toward the implementation of AI in their working practice. They were not concerned that AI will replace them, but rather that it might diminish their professional reputation.
Authors: Gabriel Chartrand; Phillip M Cheng; Eugene Vorontsov; Michal Drozdzal; Simon Turcotte; Christopher J Pal; Samuel Kadoury; An Tang Journal: Radiographics Date: 2017 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Jasper van Hoek; Adrian Huber; Alexander Leichtle; Kirsi Härmä; Daniella Hilt; Hendrik von Tengg-Kobligk; Johannes Heverhagen; Alexander Poellinger Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2019-11-09 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Lene Bjerke Laborie; Jaishree Naidoo; Erika Pace; Pierluigi Ciet; Christine Eade; Matthias W Wagner; Thierry A G M Huisman; Susan C Shelmerdine Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2022-06-22
Authors: Francesca Iacobellis; Donatella Narese; Daniela Berritto; Antonio Brillantino; Marco Di Serafino; Susanna Guerrini; Roberta Grassi; Mariano Scaglione; Maria Antonietta Mazzei; Luigia Romano Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-30