Jove
Visualize
Contact Us

Related Concept Videos

Radiological Investigation III: Pulmonary Angiogram and PET Scan01:13

Radiological Investigation III: Pulmonary Angiogram and PET Scan

227
Radiological investigations are paramount in the diagnosis and management of various pulmonary diseases. Two essential investigations are the Pulmonary Angiogram and the Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Scan.
Pulmonary Angiogram
A Pulmonary Angiogram is an invasive procedure involving injecting a contrast medium through a catheter threaded into the pulmonary artery or the right side of the heart to visualize the pulmonary vasculature. Computed Tomography (CT) scans have mainly replaced this...
227
Radiological Investigation II: MRI and Ventilation Perfusion Scan01:30

Radiological Investigation II: MRI and Ventilation Perfusion Scan

284
Description
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Ventilation Perfusion Scans are two radiological investigations that offer detailed diagnostic images of the body, particularly lung structures.
MRI
MRI uses magnetic fields and radiofrequency signals to distinguish between normal and abnormal tissues. This technology provides a more detailed diagnostic image than CT scans, enabling it to characterize pulmonary nodules, stage bronchogenic carcinoma, and evaluate inflammatory activity in...
284
Imaging Studies I: CT and MRI01:14

Imaging Studies I: CT and MRI

556
Introduction: MRI and CT scans are crucial advancements in medical imaging techniques, playing a vital role in diagnosing conditions related to the gastrointestinal (GI) system. Each scan serves distinct purposes, targets specific areas, and requires unique nursing duties.
Description of the Procedures
Computed Tomography (CT) scan:
Computed Tomography (CT) scans use X-ray technology to generate detailed images of bones, organs, and tissues. During the scan, the patient lies on a moving table...
556
Radiological Investigation I: X-ray and CT01:30

Radiological Investigation I: X-ray and CT

610
Radiological investigations, including X-rays and computed tomography (CT) scans, are critical for diagnosing and evaluating various medical conditions. These imaging techniques provide valuable insights into the body's internal structures, aiding in the detection of abnormalities, assessment of disease progression, and development of treatment strategies. This article delves into two primary radiological investigations, chest X-rays and CT scans, outlining their purpose, procedures, and...
610

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Symptom-Only Localization of Brainstem Ischemia Using Large Language Models Versus Neurologists in Diffusion-Weighted Imaging-Positive Cases: Retrospective Single-Center Study.

JMIR formative research·2026
Same author

Radiologists' memory as a data protection risk: a worst-case stress test for chest radiograph re-identification.

Insights into imaging·2026
Same author

Towards an accessible, centralised, searchable database for AI courses in Europe: the Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology Education (AIMIROE) project.

European radiology experimental·2026
Same author

AI Triage of Normal Chest Radiographs: A Silent Trial and Failure Analysis.

Radiology. Artificial intelligence·2026
Same author

Challenges underlying radiology's research problem.

Insights into imaging·2026
Same author

BCLC classification and AI-based image quantification: What is meant to be will come together - but how and when?

Journal of hepatology·2026
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Oct 31, 2025

Making MR Imaging Child's Play - Pediatric Neuroimaging Protocol, Guidelines and Procedure
15:18

Making MR Imaging Child's Play - Pediatric Neuroimaging Protocol, Guidelines and Procedure

Published on: July 30, 2009

18.4K

Artificial intelligence reporting guidelines: what the pediatric radiologist needs to know.

Riwa Meshaka1,2,3, Daniel Pinto Dos Santos4, Owen J Arthurs1,2,3

  • 1Department of Clinical Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, WC1N 3JH, UK.

Pediatric Radiology
|July 1, 2021
PubMed
Summary

This review provides an overview of essential reporting standards for artificial intelligence research in pediatric radiology, helping clinicians and researchers ensure their studies are transparent, reproducible, and clinically applicable.

Keywords:
Artificial intelligenceChildrenDiagnostic accuracyMachine learningPediatric radiologyReporting guidelinesclinical research standardsmachine learning imagingdiagnostic workflow efficiencytransparency in medicine

Frequently Asked Questions

More Related Videos

Whole-body PET/MRI of Pediatric Patients: The Details That Matter
10:02

Whole-body PET/MRI of Pediatric Patients: The Details That Matter

Published on: December 19, 2017

14.8K
Introduction of an Integrated Pathology Image Management, Artificial Intelligence, and Reporting System
05:33

Introduction of an Integrated Pathology Image Management, Artificial Intelligence, and Reporting System

Published on: July 11, 2025

470

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Oct 31, 2025

Making MR Imaging Child's Play - Pediatric Neuroimaging Protocol, Guidelines and Procedure
15:18

Making MR Imaging Child's Play - Pediatric Neuroimaging Protocol, Guidelines and Procedure

Published on: July 30, 2009

18.4K
Whole-body PET/MRI of Pediatric Patients: The Details That Matter
10:02

Whole-body PET/MRI of Pediatric Patients: The Details That Matter

Published on: December 19, 2017

14.8K
Introduction of an Integrated Pathology Image Management, Artificial Intelligence, and Reporting System
05:33

Introduction of an Integrated Pathology Image Management, Artificial Intelligence, and Reporting System

Published on: July 11, 2025

470

Area of Science:

  • Artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in medical imaging
  • Pediatric radiology clinical research standards

Background:

No prior work had resolved the inconsistency in how researchers document artificial intelligence findings within medical imaging literature. Early publications often lacked the granular detail required for clinicians to evaluate clinical utility effectively. That uncertainty drove a need for standardized frameworks to improve transparency across the field. Prior research has shown that traditional clinical studies follow established reporting structures, yet technical machine learning papers frequently diverge from these norms. This gap motivated the development of specialized checklists designed to bridge the communication divide between data scientists and medical practitioners. Pediatric radiology faces unique challenges, including significant workforce shortages and rising diagnostic volumes that require innovative technological support. While these tools offer potential solutions for workflow efficiency, their implementation remains hindered by poor reporting quality. Consequently, the medical community requires clear guidance to navigate existing documentation requirements successfully.

Purpose Of The Study:

The primary aim of this review is to increase awareness of reporting guidelines among pediatric radiologists engaged in imaging research. The authors seek to address the current lack of consistency in how technical findings are documented. Many clinicians find existing requirements daunting, which limits their participation in the development of new diagnostic tools. This work provides a clear pathway for those looking to contribute to the field with confidence. The authors intend to help readers and reviewers understand what information is necessary for evaluating the clinical utility of new models. By providing a structured checklist, they hope to improve the overall quality of published evidence. This initiative supports the broader goal of integrating advanced technology into daily clinical workflows. The review serves as a practical resource to help specialists navigate the complexities of modern research documentation.

Main Methods:

The authors conducted a comprehensive review of existing documentation standards tailored for machine learning in medical imaging. Their approach involved identifying the most clinically relevant frameworks currently available to the scientific community. They examined the specific requirements within these checklists to determine their applicability to clinical practice. The review process focused on simplifying complex technical language for practitioners without a background in computer science. They synthesized information from established reporting organizations to create a practical guide for clinicians. This strategy prioritized clarity and ease of use for those new to the field. The authors evaluated how these tools address the unique needs of imaging specialists. They structured their analysis to serve as both an educational resource and a functional reference for future research.

Main Results:

The authors identified two primary reporting frameworks that are most relevant for clinical imaging research. These tools address the high variability and inconsistency found in early machine learning publications. The review demonstrates that these checklists provide clear requirements for presenting study data transparently. By following these standards, researchers can ensure their work is understandable to clinicians who are not experts in data science. The findings suggest that these guidelines help bridge the gap between technical development and practical application. The authors note that these resources are now accessible for those writing or reviewing clinical papers. Their analysis confirms that standardized reporting is essential for evaluating the potential of new diagnostic solutions. The review provides examples of what to expect when applying these checklists to pediatric imaging studies.

Conclusions:

The authors suggest that adopting standardized reporting frameworks improves the overall quality and transparency of medical imaging research. These guidelines provide a structured approach for clinicians to evaluate the validity of new diagnostic tools. By following these checklists, researchers ensure their findings remain accessible to the broader medical community. The review emphasizes that consistent documentation is vital for the successful integration of machine learning into daily practice. Pediatric radiologists play a key role in ensuring that these technologies meet the specific needs of their patient population. Adopting these practices helps mitigate risks associated with poorly reported or non-reproducible study results. The authors propose that increased awareness of these standards will foster better collaboration between technical developers and clinical experts. Ultimately, these resources serve as a practical foundation for those aiming to contribute high-quality evidence to the field.

The authors propose that these guidelines improve transparency and reproducibility. By requiring specific details on data sources and model training, they allow clinicians to assess whether a tool is suitable for their specific patient population, unlike traditional research which lacks these technical requirements.

The researchers highlight the SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI checklists. These tools provide specific items for protocol and trial reporting, whereas general medical standards lack the technical depth needed for evaluating algorithmic performance or data bias in machine learning models.

The authors state that pediatric radiology requires these standards due to workforce shortages and high diagnostic volumes. Because these specialists face unique clinical constraints, they must ensure that new technologies are validated with sufficient detail to support safe implementation in their specific environment.

The researchers explain that these checklists act as a framework for data presentation. They ensure that researchers include essential information about model architecture and training sets, which are often omitted in early studies, thereby preventing the dissemination of opaque or non-reproducible findings.

The authors measure success by the clarity and completeness of reported study details. They contrast this with the variable quality of early research, noting that standardized reporting allows for a more consistent evaluation of diagnostic accuracy and clinical applicability across different imaging studies.

The researchers imply that widespread adoption will democratize access to specialist opinion. By ensuring that studies are presented with sufficient detail, they believe clinicians will feel more confident in applying these technologies to improve workflow efficiency and patient care outcomes.