No abstract

The aim of the paper is to find an answer to the question "Who or what is responsible for the benefits and harms of using artificial intelligence in radiology?" When human beings make decisions, the action itself is normally connected with a direct responsibility by the agent who generated the action. You have an effect on others, and therefore, you are responsible for what you do and what you decide to do. But if you do not do this yourself, but an artificial intelligence system, it becomes difficult and important to be able to ascribe responsibility when something goes wrong. The manuscript addresses the following statements: (1) using AI, the radiologist is responsible for the diagnosis; (2) radiologists must be trained on the use of AI since they are responsible for the actions of machines; (3) radiologists involved in R&D have the responsibility to guide the respect of rules for a trustworthy AI; (4) radiologist responsibility is at risk of validating the unknown (black box); (5) radiologist decision may be biased by the AI automation; (6)risk of a paradox: increasing AI tools to compensate the lack of radiologists; (7) need of informed consent and quality measures. Future legislation must outline the contours of the professional's responsibility, with respect to the provision of the service performed autonomously by AI, balancing the professional's ability to influence and therefore correct the machine, limiting the sphere of autonomy that instead technological evolution would like to recognize to robots.

Objectives To perform an online survey aimed at evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on Italian radiology departments. Methods We launched a survey composed of 25 questions about how COVID-19 has changed the safety and organization of daily activity in Italian radiology units. Results A total of 2136/10,564 (20.2%) radiologists of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology participated. Two-thirds performed at least one diagnostic/interventional procedure on COVID-19 patients. The 88.1% reported a reduction in the elective imaging volumes, with US, mammography, and MRI having shown the greater decrease (41.1%, 23.9%, and 21.1%, respectively). In 69.6% of cases, institutions had trouble getting personal protective equipment (PPE), especially public hospitals and southern institutions. Less than 30% of participants were subjected to RT-PCR swab test, although 81.5% believed that it should be done on all health workers and 70% suggested it as the most important measure to improve safety at work. Slightly more than half of participants declared to work safely and felt to be adequately protected by their institutions. Up to 20% of northern participants were redeployed to clinical services. The first imaging examination performed by admitted COVID-19 patients was chest radiography in 76.3% of cases. Almost half of participants reported that less than 30% of health workers were infected in their radiology department, with higher rates in northern regions and public institutions. Conclusions This snapshot of the current situation in Italian radiology departments could be used to harmonize the organization of working activity in order to safely and effectively face this pandemic. Key Points • More than two-thirds of institutions had trouble getting PPE for health workers, with public hospitals and southern institutions that presented more procurement problems • A substantial drop of imaging volumes was observed in the vast majority of Italian radiology departments, mostly due to the decrease of ultrasound, mammography, and MRI, especially in private practice were working activity was stopped in 13.3% of institutions • RT-PCR swab to health workers was reported as the most suggested measure by Italian radiologists to improve safety at work, as more than 80% of them believed that it should be performed to all health workers, although less than 30% were subjected to this test

No abstract

In our series, the most frequent pneumonia patterns observed during S-OIV (H1N1) virus were interstitial changes and patchy ground-glass appearance, mostly bilateral, and located in the lower lung zones. CT, performed in severely ill patients, confirmed the ARDS identified with chest X-rays, better depicting the features and extent of lung abnormalities.