Implementing Artificial Intelligence for Emergency Radiology Impacts Physicians' Knowledge and Perception: A Prospective Pre- and Post-Analysis.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of implementing an artificial intelligence (AI) solution for emergency radiology into clinical routine on physicians' perception and knowledge. A prospective interventional survey was performed pre-implementation and 3 months post-implementation of an AI algorithm for fracture detection on radiographs in late 2022. Radiologists and traumatologists were asked about their knowledge and perception of AI on a 7-point Likert scale (-3, "strongly disagree"; +3, "strongly agree"). Self-generated identification codes allowed matching the same individuals pre-intervention and post-intervention, and using Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired data. A total of 47/71 matched participants completed both surveys (66% follow-up rate) and were eligible for analysis (34 radiologists [72%], 13 traumatologists [28%], 15 women [32%]; mean age, 34.8 ± 7.8 years). Postintervention, there was an increase that AI "reduced missed findings" (1.28 [pre] vs 1.94 [post], P = 0.003) and made readers "safer" (1.21 vs 1.64, P = 0.048), but not "faster" (0.98 vs 1.21, P = 0.261). There was a rising disagreement that AI could "replace the radiological report" (-2.04 vs -2.34, P = 0.038), as well as an increase in self-reported knowledge about "clinical AI," its "chances," and its "risks" (0.40 vs 1.00, 1.21 vs 1.70, and 0.96 vs 1.34; all P 's ≤ 0.028). Radiologists used AI results more frequently than traumatologists ( P < 0.001) and rated benefits higher (all P 's ≤ 0.038), whereas senior physicians were less likely to use AI or endorse its benefits (negative correlation with age, -0.35 to 0.30; all P 's ≤ 0.046). Implementing AI for emergency radiology into clinical routine has an educative aspect and underlines the concept of AI as a "second reader," to support and not replace physicians.