ReviewQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Foundation models for X-ray interpretation: a narrative review of current techniques and future perspectives in diagnostic imaging.
Review in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: The scarcity of high-quality annotated data is a primary bottleneck in developing artificial intelligence (AI) for chest X-ray (CXR) interpretation. Foundation models (FMs), trained on broad datasets via self-supervision, present a transformative solution. This narrative review analyzes the current state of vision and vision-language foundation models (VLFMs) specifically for CXR, evaluating their potential to bridge research and clinical practice through a novel analytical framework. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we conducted a narrative review of literature from 2021-2025. We introduced and applied a novel four-pillar analytical taxonomy to structure the field: (I) core model architecture; (II) training framework; (III) clinical application adaptation; and (IV) quality assurance (QA). This framework guided the synthesis of evidence from over 150 studies, enabling a structured analysis of model designs, training paradigms, adaptation strategies, and evaluation metrics. Key Content and Findings: The four-pillar taxonomy provides a critical lens to deconstruct the FM development pipeline. Our analysis reveals distinct maturity levels across pillars: while architectural innovation and training strategies are advanced, rigorous QA and adaptation for real-world heterogeneity (e.g., portable Conclusions: CXR-FMs offer a path toward more generalizable and data-efficient diagnostic AI. However, successful clinical translation is contingent upon coordinated advances across all four pillars of the proposed framework, moving beyond architectural scaling to prioritize data diversity, robustness auditing, and seamless workflow integration. This taxonomy provides researchers and clinicians with an actionable framework to develop and evaluate models whose impact will be determined by demonstrated fairness, reliability, and utility in diverse clinical environments.
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.