An investigation of diseases using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging requires automatic image quality assessment methods able to exclude low-quality scans. Such methods can be also employed for an optimization of parameters of imaging systems or evaluation of image processing algorithms. Therefore, in this paper, a novel blind image quality assessment (BIQA) method for the evaluation of MR images is introduced. It is observed that the result of filtering using non-maximum suppression (NMS) strongly depends on the perceptual quality of an input image. Hence, in the method, the image is first processed by the NMS with various levels of acceptable local intensity difference. Then, the quality is efficiently expressed by the entropy of a sequence of extrema numbers obtained with the thresholded NMS. The proposed BIQA approach is compared with ten state-of-the-art techniques on a dataset containing MR images and subjective scores provided by 31 experienced radiologists. The Pearson, Spearman, Kendall correlation coefficients and root mean square error for the method assessing images in the dataset were 0.6741, 0.3540, 0.2428, and 0.5375, respectively. The extensive experimental evaluation of the BIQA methods reveals that the introduced measure outperforms related techniques by a large margin as it correlates better with human scores.

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate whether contemporary artificial intelligence (AI), including convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for medical imaging and large language models (LLMs) for language processing, could replace physicians in the near future and to identify the principal clinical, technical, and regulatory barriers. Methods: A narrative review is conducted on the scientific literature addressing AI performance and reproducibility in medical imaging, LLM competence in medical knowledge assessment and patient communication, limitations in out-of-distribution generalization, absence of physical examination and sensory inputs, and current regulatory and legal frameworks, particularly within the European Union. Results: AI systems demonstrate high accuracy and reproducibility in narrowly defined tasks, such as image interpretation, lesion measurement, triage, documentation support, and written communication. These capabilities reduce interobserver variability and support workflow efficiency. However, major obstacles to physician replacement persist, including limited generalization beyond training distributions, inability to perform physical examination or procedural tasks, susceptibility of LLMs to hallucinations and overconfidence, unresolved issues of legal liability at higher levels of autonomy, and the continued requirement for clinician oversight. Conclusions: In the foreseeable future, AI will augment rather than replace physicians. The most realistic trajectory involves automation of well-defined tasks under human supervision, while clinical integration, physical examination, procedural performance, ethical judgment, and accountability remain physician-dependent. Future adoption should prioritize robust clinical validation, uncertainty management, escalation pathways to clinicians, and clear regulatory and legal frameworks.