To review eXplainable Artificial Intelligence/(XAI) methods available for medical imaging/(MI). A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology. The search was performed on Pubmed, Embase, Cinhal, Web of Science, BioRxiv, MedRxiv, and Google Scholar. Studies published in French and English after 2017 were included. Keyword combinations and descriptors related to explainability, and MI modalities were employed. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, titles and full text, resolving differences through discussion. 228 studies met the criteria. XAI publications are increasing, targeting MRI (n = 73), radiography (n = 47), CT (n = 46). Lung (n = 82) and brain (n = 74) pathologies, Covid-19 (n = 48), Alzheimer's disease (n = 25), brain tumors (n = 15) are the main pathologies explained. Explanations are presented visually (n = 186), numerically (n = 67), rule-based (n = 11), textually (n = 11), and example-based (n = 6). Commonly explained tasks include classification (n = 89), prediction (n = 47), diagnosis (n = 39), detection (n = 29), segmentation (n = 13), and image quality improvement (n = 6). The most frequently provided explanations were local (78.1 %), 5.7 % were global, and 16.2 % combined both local and global approaches. Post-hoc approaches were predominantly employed. The used terminology varied, sometimes indistinctively using explainable (n = 207), interpretable (n = 187), understandable (n = 112), transparent (n = 61), reliable (n = 31), and intelligible (n = 3). The number of XAI publications in medical imaging is increasing, primarily focusing on applying XAI techniques to MRI, CT, and radiography for classifying and predicting lung and brain pathologies. Visual and numerical output formats are predominantly used. Terminology standardisation remains a challenge, as terms like "explainable" and "interpretable" are sometimes being used indistinctively. Future XAI development should consider user needs and perspectives.

Objectives Review available guidance for quality assurance (QA) in mammography and discuss its contribution to harmonise practices worldwide. Methods Literature search was performed on different sources to identify guidance documents for QA in mammography available worldwide in international bodies, healthcare providers, professional/scientific associations. The guidance documents identified were reviewed and a selection was compared for type of guidance (clinical/technical), technology and proposed QA methodologies focusing on dose and image quality (IQ) performance assessment. Results Fourteen protocols (targeted at conventional and digital mammography) were reviewed. All included recommendations for testing acquisition, processing and display systems associated with mammographic equipment. All guidance reviewed highlighted the importance of dose assessment and testing the Automatic Exposure Control (AEC) system. Recommended tests for assessment of IQ showed variations in the proposed methodologies. Recommended testing focused on assessment of low-contrast detection, spatial resolution and noise. QC of image display is recommended following the American Association of Physicists in Medicine guidelines. Conclusions The existing QA guidance for mammography is derived from key documents (American College of Radiology and European Union guidelines) and proposes similar tests despite the variations in detail and methodologies. Studies reported on QA data should provide detail on experimental technique to allow robust data comparison. Countries aiming to implement a mammography/QA program may select/prioritise the tests depending on available technology and resources. Main messages •An effective QA program should be practical to implement in a clinical setting. •QA should address the various stages of the imaging chain: acquisition, processing and display. •AEC system QC testing is simple to implement and provides information on equipment performance.

Magnetic resonance imaging is widely used for different diagnostic examinations involving autistic patients. The noisy, narrow, isolating magnetic resonance imaging environment and long scan times may not be suitable for autistic individuals, given their communication challenges, sensory sensitivities and often heightened anxiety. This systematic review aims to reveal any reasonable and feasible radiography-based adjustments to facilitate magnetic resonance imaging scanning without the use of sedation or general anaesthesia. Nine electronic databases were systematically searched. Out of 4442 articles screened, 53 were deemed directly relevant; when assessed against eligibility criteria, only 21 were finally included in this systematic review. Customising communication was found to be a key adjustment, as well as scan-based optimisation and environmental adaptations. The importance of distraction techniques and use of technology for familiarisation with the processes was also highlighted. The results of this study can inform recommendations to improve magnetic resonance imaging practice and patient experience, without the use of sedation or anaesthesia, where feasible. They can also inform the basis of dedicated training for magnetic resonance imaging radiographers. Lay Autistic patients often undergo magnetic resonance imaging examinations. Within this environment, it is usual to feel anxious and overwhelmed by noises, lights or other people. The narrow scanners, the loud noises and the long examination time can easily cause panic attacks. This review aims to identify any adaptations for autistic individuals to have a magnetic resonance imaging scan without sedation or anaesthesia. Out of 4442 articles screened, 53 more relevant were evaluated and 21 were finally included in this study. Customising communication, different techniques to improve the environment, using technology for familiarisation and distraction have been used in previous studies. The results of this study can be used to make suggestions on how to improve magnetic resonance imaging practice and the autistic patient experience. They can also be used to create training for the healthcare professionals using the magnetic resonance imaging scanners.

Purpose: To characterise the mammography technique used in breast cancer screening programmes for breast implants (BI) and to identify if the image quality (IQ) criteria available in literature are applicable to BI imaging. Methods: The study was conducted in two phases: literature review to find IQ criteria used in mammography combining keywords in several sources; and assessment of 1207 BI mammograms using the criteria that was identified previously to see if they were achieved or not. An observation grid was used to collect information about positioning, beam energy, compression force, and exposure mode. Descriptive statistics and Student’s t test and χ² test were performed according to the nature of the variables. Results: Forty-seven out of 2188 documents were included in the analysis, with 13 items identified to assess the quality of positioning, 4 for sharpness, 3 for artefacts, and 2 for exposure parameters. After applying the criteria to BI mammograms, retroglandular fat was not included in 37.3% of the images. The “Pectoral-Nipple-Line” criterion was achieved in 35% of MLO/ML images. The placement of the implant (subpectoral/subglandular) or performing the Eklund had significant influence on the visible anatomy (p = < 0.005), alongside whether the breast was aligned to the detector’s centre. Conclusions: Some of the criteria used to assess standard mammograms were not applicable to BI due to implant overlap. The alignment of the image with the detector’s centre seems to have an impact on the amount of visible tissue. Further studies are necessary to define the appropriate protocol, technique, and suitable quality criteria to assess BI mammograms.

Background: Autistic individuals might undergo a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination for clinical concerns or research. Increased sensory stimulation, lack of appropriate environmental adjustments, or lack of streamlined communication in the MRI suite may pose challenges to autistic patients and render MRI scans inaccessible. This study aimed at (i) exploring the MRI scan experiences of autistic adults in the United Kingdom; (ii) identifying barriers and enablers toward successful and safe MRI examinations; (iii) assessing autistic individuals' satisfaction with MRI service; and (iv) informing future recommendations for practice improvement. Methods: We distributed an online survey to the autistic community on social media, using snowball sampling. Inclusion criteria were: being older than 16, have an autism diagnosis or self-diagnosis, self-reported capacity to consent, and having had an MRI scan in the United Kingdom. We used descriptive statistics for demographics, inferential statistics for group comparisons/correlations, and content analysis for qualitative data. Results: We received 112 responses. A total of 29.6% of the respondents reported not being sent any information before the scan. Most participants (68%) confirmed that radiographers provided detailed information on the day of the examination, but only 17.1% reported that radiographers offered some reasonable environmental adjustments. Only 23.2% of them confirmed they disclosed their autistic identity when booking MRI scanning. We found that quality of communication, physical environment, patient emotions, staff training, and confounding societal factors impacted their MRI experiences. Autistic individuals rated their overall MRI experience as neutral and reported high levels of claustrophobia (44.8%). Conclusion: This study highlighted a lack of effective communication and coordination of care, either between health care services or between patients and radiographers, and lack of reasonable adjustments as vital for more accessible and person-centered MRI scanning for autistic individuals. Enablers of successful scans included effective communication, adjusted MRI environment, scans tailored to individuals' needs/preferences, and well-trained staff. Community brief Why is this an important issue? Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an examination that shows human anatomy and may explain the causes of symptoms. Autistic people may need MRI scans for various reasons, such as low back pain, headaches, accidents, or epilepsy. They have known sensitivities to sound, light, smell, or touch and increased anxiety, so the narrow, loud, isolating, unfamiliar MRI environment may be overwhelming to them. If MRI scans are, for these reasons, inaccessible, many autistic people will have to live with long-standing conditions, pain, or other symptoms, or have delayed treatment, with impact on their quality of life, and life expectancy. What was the purpose of this study? We tried to understand how autistic people perceive MRI examinations, things that work, and the challenges they face. We also asked for their suggestions to improve practice and accessibility. What did we do? We distributed an online questionnaire to autistic adults through social media. We analyzed the data using appropriate statistical and text analysis methods. What were the results of the study? We received 112 responses. Autistic people rated their overall MRI experience as average. Nearly a third (29.6%) reported they were not sent any information before MRI, and only 17.1% reported that radiographers offered some reasonable environmental adjustments. Most participants (68%) reported that radiographers provided detailed information on the day of the scan. Only 23.2% of them disclosed their autistic identity when booking MRIs. We found that quality of communication, physical environment, patient emotions, staff training, stigma, and timely autism diagnosis impacted their MRI experiences. What do these findings add to what was already known? Autistic people MRI scan experiences are at the heart of this project. Our project shows that MRI for common symptoms is often inaccessible by autistic people. We should improve the MRI environment, adjust communication format/content for them, and deliver person-centered care in MRI. Health care professionals should receive relevant training, to understand the challenges autistic people might face and better support them in MRI scanning. What are potential weaknesses in the study? The pandemic has impacted participant recruitment; therefore, the results of this sample may not reflect the full impact on the wider autistic population or adequately represent the autistic community, due to small size and including only people who could consent. These results come from different centers, so there is a lot of variation in the use of MRI equipment. How will these findings help autistic adults now or in the future? We outline the main challenges associated with MRI, so autistic adults and their families/carers understand more of what they could expect in future examinations; hopefully, researchers and scanner manufacturers will try to tackle these challenges to make MRI scans truly accessible for autistic people. We shared this knowledge with stakeholders to develop guidelines and started using it in training. We want to ensure that MRI is person-centered and more accessible for autistic patients.