Deep-learning algorithms typically fall within the domain of supervised artificial intelligence and are designed to “learn” from annotated data. Deep-learning models require large, diverse training datasets for optimal model convergence. The effort to curate these datasets is widely regarded as a barrier to the development of deep-learning systems. We developed RIL-Contour to accelerate medical image annotation for and with deep-learning. A major goal driving the development of the software was to create an environment which enables clinically oriented users to utilize deep-learning models to rapidly annotate medical imaging. RIL-Contour supports using fully automated deep-learning methods, semi-automated methods, and manual methods to annotate medical imaging with voxel and/or text annotations. To reduce annotation error, RIL-Contour promotes the standardization of image annotations across a dataset. RIL-Contour accelerates medical imaging annotation through the process of annotation by iterative deep learning (AID). The underlying concept of AID is to iteratively annotate, train, and utilize deep-learning models during the process of dataset annotation and model development. To enable this, RIL-Contour supports workflows in which multiple-image analysts annotate medical images, radiologists approve the annotations, and data scientists utilize these annotations to train deep-learning models. To automate the feedback loop between data scientists and image analysts, RIL-Contour provides mechanisms to enable data scientists to push deep newly trained deep-learning models to other users of the software. RIL-Contour and the AID methodology accelerate dataset annotation and model development by facilitating rapid collaboration between analysts, radiologists, and engineers.

The performance of a deep learning model was not different from that of radiologists in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer at MRI, and gradient-weighted class activation maps localized the tumor.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Standard assessment criteria for brain tumors that only include anatomic imaging continue to be insufficient. While numerous studies have demonstrated the value of DSC-MR imaging perfusion metrics for this purpose, they have not been incorporated due to a lack of confidence in the consistency of DSC-MR imaging metrics across sites and platforms. This study addresses this limitation with a comparison of multisite/multiplatform analyses of shared DSC-MR imaging datasets of patients with brain tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DSC-MR imaging data were collected after a preload and during a bolus injection of gadolinium contrast agent using a gradient recalled-echo–EPI sequence (TE/TR = 30/1200 ms; flip angle = 72°). Forty-nine low-grade (n = 13) and high-grade (n = 36) glioma datasets were uploaded to The Cancer Imaging Archive. Datasets included a predetermined arterial input function, enhancing tumor ROIs, and ROIs necessary to create normalized relative CBV and CBF maps. Seven sites computed 20 different perfusion metrics. Pair-wise agreement among sites was assessed with the Lin concordance correlation coefficient. Distinction of low- from high-grade tumors was evaluated with the Wilcoxon rank sum test followed by receiver operating characteristic analysis to identify the optimal thresholds based on sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: For normalized relative CBV and normalized CBF, 93% and 94% of entries showed good or excellent cross-site agreement (0.8 ≤ Lin concordance correlation coefficient ≤ 1.0). All metrics could distinguish low- from high-grade tumors. Optimum thresholds were determined for pooled data (normalized relative CBV = 1.4, sensitivity/specificity = 90%:77%; normalized CBF = 1.58, sensitivity/specificity = 86%:77%). CONCLUSIONS: By means of DSC-MR imaging data obtained after a preload of contrast agent, substantial consistency resulted across sites for brain tumor perfusion metrics with a common threshold discoverable for distinguishing low- from high-grade tumors.

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to transform healthcare by assisting in documentation, diagnosis, patient communication, and medical education. However, their integration into clinical practice remains a challenge. This perspective explores the barriers to implementation by synthesizing recent evidence across five challenge domains: workflow misalignment and diagnostic safety, bias and equity, regulatory and legal governance, technical vulnerabilities such as hallucinations or data poisoning, and the preservation of patient trust and human connection. While the perspective focuses on barriers, LLM capabilities and mitigation strategies are advancing rapidly, raising the likelihood of near-term clinical impact. Drawing on recent empirical studies, we propose a framework for understanding the key technical, ethical, and practical challenges associated with deploying LLMs in clinical environments and provide directions for future research, governance, and responsible deployment.

Integration of AI-enabled algorithms into the radiology workflow presents a complex array of challenges that span operational, technical, clinical, and regulatory domains. Successfully overcoming these hurdles requires a multifaceted approach, including strategic planning, educational initiatives, and careful consideration of the practical implications for radiologists' workloads. Institutions must navigate these challenges with a clear understanding of the potential benefits and limitations of both vended and in-house developed AI tools.