Perception, attitude and expectations of diagnostic imaging professionals towards integration of artificial intelligence in the medical imaging service


Abstract

Background: The use of artificial intelligence in medical imaging is steadily changing how radiology is practiced today. As these technologies continue to grow, it is important to understand how diagnostic imaging professionals perceive them. The aim of this study is to investigate the perception, attitude, and future expectations of diagnostic imaging professionals towards the integration of AI in the medical imaging service.

Methods: This study used a cross-sectional survey to gather input from professionals working in diagnostic imaging. A structured questionnaire was distributed to collect data on their background, level of familiarity with AI, perceived effects on daily work, ethical concerns, and readiness to use AI in practice. Statistical analysis was used to examine how factors like education and years of experience relate to their views.

Results: About 68.3% of the participants were relatively familiar with the application of AI in medical imaging. In addition, 81.2% of the participants believed that AI plays an important role in the advancement of medical imaging. Moreover, 75% of the participants indicated a willingness to incorporate AI into their daily practices, and only 41% of the participants believed that the application of AI would negatively impact job availability in the future. Those with higher education or prior exposure to AI had more positive attitudes.

Conclusion: Diagnostic imaging professionals appear hopeful about the role of AI, but there are still gaps in knowledge and concerns about ethical use. More training and clear policies are needed to help guide the safe and effective use of AI in radiology.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].