Introduction: Implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into medical imaging is much debated. Diagnostic Radiographers (DRs) and Radiation Therapists (RTTs) are at the forefront of this technological leap, thus an understanding of their views, in particular changes to their current roles, is key to safe, optimal implementation. Methods: An online survey was designed, including themes: role changes, clinical priorities for AI, patient benefits, and education. It was distributed nationally in the Republic of Ireland via the national professional body, clinical management, and social media. Results: 318 DRs and 77 RTTs participated. Priority areas for development included quality assurance, clinical audit, radiation dose optimisation, and improved workflow for DRs and treatment planning algorithm optimisation, clinical audit, and post processing for RTTs. There was resistance regarding AI use for patient facing roles and final image interpretation. 27.6% of DRs and 40.3% of RTTs currently use AI clinically and 46.1% of DRs and 41.2% of RTTs anticipate reduced staffing levels with AI. 64.9% of DRs and 70.6% of RTTs felt AI will be positive for patients, with the majority promoting AI regulation through national legislation. 86.1% of DRs and 94.0% of RTTs were favourable to AI implementation. Conclusion: This research identifies priority AI development and implementation areas for DRs and RTTs. It thus highlights that DRs and RTTs should be involved in development of AI tools that would best support practice, and that clearly defined pathways for AI implementation into these key professions requires discussion so that optimum use and patient safety can ensue. Implications for practice: Understanding opinions of AI has significant implications for practice, for ensuring optimal product development, implementation, and training, together with planning for potential DR and RTT role changes.
The relevant image features were rated more visible on the iPad 3 than on the monitors overall. The iPad 3 was well accepted by a large majority of examiners and can be considered adequate for image display for examination in most or all specialties.
This paper reviews previous studies and reports on the first stage of a series of field studies developed with the aim of assessing the performance of ventilation systems currently in use in public houses where smoking is permitted. Established ventilation theory is used to hypothesize the behaviour of these systems predicting that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke will be substantially reduced. The problems associated with conducting field studies in buildings of this nature are discussed, and the results of some representative studies are presented. The effectiveness of the ventilation systems is clearly demonstrated. Limitations of the study are identified and further work is proposed. Practical application: This paper informs the current debate on the value of ventilation systems in spaces where smoking is permitted. Despite the proposed ban on smoking in public places in England and the ban in Scotland there will be a variety of exemptions where the building is also someone's place of residence. Internationally, alternatives to a ban including the better use of ventilation systems are under consideration. In addition to making the case for the use of ventilation, the paper provides some interesting pointers on innovative supply strategies for this application.
Interventional radiology is a rapidly evolving speciality with potential to deliver high patient radiation doses, as a result high standards of radiation safety practice are imperative. IR radiation safety practice must be considered before during and after procedures through appropriate patient consent, dose monitoring and patient follow-up. This questionnaire-based study surveyed fixed IR departments across Ireland and England to establish clinical practice in relation to radiation safety. Pre-procedure IR patient consent includes all radiation effects in 11% of cases. The patient skin dose surrogate parameter of Kerma to air at a reference point (Kar) is under-reported. Only 39% of respondents use a substantial radiation dose level and inform patients after these have been reached. Poor compliance with unambiguous, readily available best practice guidance was observed throughout highlighting patient communication, patient dose quantification and subsequent patient dose management concerns.
In February 2011 the University of Chicago Medical School distributed iPads to its trainee doctors for use when reviewing clinical information and images on the ward or clinics. The use of tablet computing devices is becoming widespread in medicine with Apple TM heralding them as "revolutionary" in medicine. The question arises, just because it is technical achievable to use iPads for clinical evaluation of images, should we do so? The current work assesses the diagnostic efficacy of iPads when compared with LCD secondary display monitors for identifying lung nodules on chest x-rays.Eight examining radiologists of the American Board of Radiology were involved in the assessment, reading chest images on both the iPad and the an off-the-shelf LCD monitor. Thirty chest images were shown to each observer, of which 15 had one or more lung nodules. Radiologists were asked to locate the nodules and score how confident they were with their decision on a scale of 1-5. An ROC and JAFROC analysis was performed and modalities were compared using DBM MRMC.The results demonstrate no significant differences in performance between the iPad and the LCD for the ROC AUC (p<0.075) or JAFROC FOM (p<0.059) for random readers and random cases. Sample size estimation showed that this result is significant at a power of 0.8 and an effect size of 0.05 for ROC and 0.07 for JAFROC. This work demonstrates that for the task of identifying pulmonary nodules, the use of the iPad does not significantly change performance compared to an off-the-shelf LCD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.