Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 16, 2026
Introduction of an Integrated Pathology Image Management, Artificial Intelligence, and Reporting System
Published on: July 11, 2025
Impact of Artificial Intelligence Triage on Radiologist Report Turnaround Time: Real-World Time Savings and Insights
Yee Lam Elim Thompson1, Jonathan Fergus2, Jonathan Chung3
1US FDA / Center for Devices and Radiological Health, White Oak, Maryland.
Objective:
To quantify the impact of workflow parameters on time savings in report turnaround time due to an AI triage device that prioritized pulmonary embolism (PE) in chest CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) examinations.
Methods:
This retrospective study analyzed 11,252 adult CTPA examinations conducted for suspected PE at a single tertiary academic medical center. Data was divided into two periods: pre-artificial intelligence (AI) and post-AI. For PE-positive examinations, turnaround time (TAT)-defined as the duration from patient scan completion to the first preliminary report completion-was compared between the two periods. Time savings were reported separately for work-hour and off-hour cohorts. To characterize radiologist workflow, 527,234 records were retrieved from the PACS and workflow parameters such as examination interarrival time and radiologist read time extracted. These parameters were input into a computational model to predict time savings after deployment of an AI triage device and to study the impact of workflow parameters.
Results:
The pre-AI dataset included 4,694 chest CTPA examinations with 13.3% being PE-positive. The post-AI dataset comprised 6,558 examinations with 16.2% being PE-positive. The mean TAT for pre-AI and post-AI during work hours are 68.9 (95% confidence interval 55.0-82.8) and 46.7 (38.1-55.2) min, respectively, and those during off-hours are 44.8 (33.7-55.9) and 42.0 (33.6-50.3) min. Clinically observed time savings during work hours (22.2 [95% confidence interval: 5.85-38.6] min) were significant (P = .004), while off-hour (2.82 [-11.1 to 16.7] min) were not (P = .345). Observed time savings aligned with model predictions (29.6 [95% range: 23.2-38.1] min for work hours; 2.10 [1.76, 2.58] min for off-hours).
Discussion:
Consideration and quantification of the clinical workflow contributes to the accurate assessment of the expected time savings in report TAT after deployment of an AI triage device.
More Related Videos
04:09Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: October 10, 2018
05:18Author Spotlight: Improving Radiation Therapy Access with Radiation Planning Assistant
Published on: October 6, 2023
