ReviewInsights into imaging2025
Foundation models for radiology-the position of the AI for Health Imaging (AI4HI) network.
Review in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning for Radiomics in Oncology: Challenges, Limitations, and Future Directions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Foundation models in healthcare: a comprehensive review from technical advances to clinical translation.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Foundation models in radiology: a primer for pediatric radiologists.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- Implementing generative artificial intelligence in precision oncology: safety, governance, and significance.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2026Review
- Mind the gap: challenges and future directions for content-based image retrieval in clinical radiology.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Foundation models are large models trained on big data which can be used for downstream tasks. In radiology, these models can potentially address several gaps in fairness and generalization, as they can be trained on massive datasets without labelled data and adapted to tasks requiring data with a small number of descriptions. This reduces one of the limiting bottlenecks in clinical model construction-data annotation-as these models can be trained through a variety of techniques that require little more than radiological images with or without their corresponding radiological reports. However, foundation models may be insufficient as they are affected-to a smaller extent when compared with traditional supervised learning approaches-by the same issues that lead to underperforming models, such as a lack of transparency/explainability, and biases. To address these issues, we advocate that the development of foundation models should not only be pursued but also accompanied by the development of a decentralized clinical validation and continuous training framework. This does not guarantee the resolution of the problems associated with foundation models, but it enables developers, clinicians and patients to know when, how and why models should be updated, creating a clinical AI ecosystem that is better capable of serving all stakeholders. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Foundation models may mitigate issues like bias and poor generalization in radiology AI, but challenges persist. We propose a decentralized, cross-institutional framework for continuous validation and training to enhance model reliability, safety, and clinical utility. KEY POINTS: Foundation models trained on large datasets reduce annotation burdens and improve fairness and generalization in radiology. Despite improvements, they still face challenges like limited transparency, explainability, and residual biases. A decentralized, cross-institutional framework for clinical validation and continuous training can strengthen reliability and inclusivity in clinical AI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.