Korean J Radiol.  2024 Jul;25(7):613-622. 10.3348/kjr.2023.1246.

2023 Survey on User Experience of Artificial Intelligence Software in Radiology by the Korean Society of Radiology

• Hwang EJ
• Park JE
• Song KD
• Yang DH
• Kim KW
• Lee JG
• Yoon JH
• Han K
• Kim DH
• Kim H
• Park CM
• as the Radiology Imaging Network of Korea for Clinical Research (RINK-CR)

• KMID: 2557060
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2023.1246

Abstract

Objective
In Korea, radiology has been positioned towards the early adoption of artificial intelligence-based software as medical devices (AI-SaMDs); however, little is known about the current usage, implementation, and future needs of AI-SaMDs. We surveyed the current trends and expectations for AI-SaMDs among members of the Korean Society of Radiology (KSR).
Materials and Methods
An anonymous and voluntary online survey was open to all KSR members between April 17 and May 15, 2023. The survey was focused on the experiences of using AI-SaMDs, patterns of usage, levels of satisfaction, and expectations regarding the use of AI-SaMDs, including the roles of the industry, government, and KSR regarding the clinical use of AI-SaMDs.
Results
Among the 370 respondents (response rate: 7.7% [370/4792]; 340 board-certified radiologists; 210 from academic institutions), 60.3% (223/370) had experience using AI-SaMDs. The two most common use-case of AI-SaMDs among the respondents were lesion detection (82.1%, 183/223), lesion diagnosis/classification (55.2%, 123/223), with the target imaging modalities being plain radiography (62.3%, 139/223), CT (42.6%, 95/223), mammography (29.1%, 65/223), and MRI (28.7%, 64/223). Most users were satisfied with AI-SaMDs (67.6% [115/170, for improvement of patient management] to 85.1% [189/222, for performance]). Regarding the expansion of clinical applications, most respondents expressed a preference for AI-SaMDs to assist in detection/diagnosis (77.0%, 285/370) and to perform automated measurement/quantification (63.5%, 235/370). Most respondents indicated that future development of AI-SaMDs should focus on improving practice efficiency (81.9%, 303/370) and quality (71.4%, 264/370). Overall, 91.9% of the respondents (340/370) agreed that there is a need for education or guidelines driven by the KSR regarding the use of AI-SaMDs.
Conclusion
The penetration rate of AI-SaMDs in clinical practice and the corresponding satisfaction levels were high among members of the KSR. Most AI-SaMDs have been used for lesion detection, diagnosis, and classification. Most respondents requested KSR-driven education or guidelines on the use of AI-SaMDs.

Keyword

Radiology; Artificial intelligence; Survey; Machine learning; Medical device