This report describes 12 major practices during data handling that predispose machine learning systems to mathematical bias. Minimizing bias is critical to adoption and implementation of machine learning (ML) in clinical practice. Systematic mathematical biases produce consistent and reproducible differences between the ...

“Just Accepted” papers have undergone full peer review and have been accepted for publication in Radiology: Artificial Intelligence. This article will undergo copyediting, layout, and proof review ...

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical imaging has revolutionized diagnostic capabilities, yet the black-box nature of deep learning models poses significant challenges for clinical adoption. Current explainable AI (XAI) approaches, including SHAP, LIME, and Grad-CAM, predominantly focus on post hoc explanations that may inadvertently undermine clinical decision-making by providing misleading confidence in AI outputs. This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of 67 studies (covering 23 radiology, 19 pathology, and 25 ophthalmology applications) evaluating XAI fidelity, stability, and performance trade-offs across medical imaging modalities. Our meta-analysis of 847 initially identified studies reveals that LIME achieves superior fidelity (0.81, 95% CI: 0.78–0.84) compared to SHAP (0.38, 95% CI: 0.35–0.41) and Grad-CAM (0.54, 95% CI: 0.51–0.57) across all modalities. Post hoc explanations demonstrated poor stability under noise perturbation, with SHAP showing 53% degradation in ophthalmology applications (ρ = 0.42 at 10% noise) compared to 11% in radiology (ρ = 0.89). We demonstrate a consistent 5–7% AUC performance penalty for interpretable models but identify modality-specific stability patterns suggesting that tailored XAI approaches are necessary. Based on these empirical findings, we propose a comprehensive three-pillar accountability framework that prioritizes transparency in model development, interpretability in architecture design, and a cautious deployment of post hoc explanations with explicit uncertainty quantification. This approach offers a pathway toward genuinely accountable AI systems that enhance rather than compromise clinical decision-making quality and patient safety.

Artificial intelligence is a revolutionary technology that promises to assist clinicians in improving patient care. In radiology, deep learning (DL) is widely used in clinical decision aids due to its ability to analyze complex patterns and images. It allows for rapid, enhanced data, and imaging analysis, from diagnosis to outcome prediction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current literature and clinical utilization of DL in spine imaging. This study is a scoping review and utilized the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology to review the scientific literature from 2012 to 2021. A search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embased, and IEEE Xplore databases with syntax specific for DL and medical imaging in spine care applications was conducted to collect all original publications on the subject. Specific data was extracted from the available literature, including algorithm application, algorithms tested, database type and size, algorithm training method, and outcome of interest. A total of 365 studies (total sample of 232,394 patients) were included and grouped into 4 general applications: diagnostic tools, clinical decision support tools, automated clinical/instrumentation assessment, and clinical outcome prediction. Notable disparities exist in the selected algorithms and the training across multiple disparate databases. The most frequently used algorithms were U-Net and ResNet. A DL model was developed and validated in 92% of included studies, while a pre-existing DL model was investigated in 8%. Of all developed models, only 15% of them have been externally validated. Based on this scoping review, DL in spine imaging is used in a broad range of clinical applications, particularly for diagnosing spinal conditions. There is a wide variety of DL algorithms, database characteristics, and training methods. Future studies should focus on external validation of existing models before bringing them into clinical use.