ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Evaluation of standardized DICOM labels assigned by a hybrid AI tool and its impact on radiologists' reading times.
Article in European radiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMedical artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly used to manage the growing imaging workload in radiology. Although highly relevant to daily clinical practice, AI-driven workflow tools remain underrepresented in research. Inconsistencies in DICOM metadata are a major obstacle to workflow optimization, AI integration, and inter-institutional data sharing. Automatic DICOM metadata standardization is an important step towards addressing these challenges. This study evaluates the labeling accuracy of a commercially available AI-aided hybrid software tool and its impact on radiologists' reading times. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective cohort study assessed the labeling accuracy of the DICOM standardization tool. A retrospective before-and-after design evaluated its impact on reading times. The tool was applied by a radiology provider between 2022 and 2024. Standardized DICOM labels (modality, body part, laterality, plane, contrast protocol) across 422 CR images and 1503 CT series were manually reviewed (gold standard). In a separate analysis, reading times before (10,966 cases) and after (10,342 cases) DICOM standardization were compared.
resultsLabeling accuracy ranged from 83 to 100% for body part, 91 to 100% for plane, and 88-100% for protocol classification. Following implementation, average reading times significantly decreased for CT Abdomen (-2.9 min), Total Body (-2.2 min), Head (-0.73 min), and Temporal Bone (-2.5 min) (p ≤ 0.02), with relative efficiency gains of 8-22%. Extrapolated annually, this equals 270 h saved. No significant changes were observed for CT Chest and Sinus/Orbits.
conclusionThis study suggests that an AI-aided tool can adequately standardize DICOM labels and may be associated with statistically significant reductions in radiologists' reading times following implementation. KEY POINTS: Question Inconsistent DICOM metadata pose long-standing challenges in imaging data management, hindering processes such as workflow efficiency, AI integration, and inter-institutional image sharing. What is the role of AI solutions to address DICOM inconsistencies? Findings An AI-aided hybrid software tool adequately standardized DICOM labels and may be associated with statistically significant reductions in radiologists' reading times following implementation. Clinical relevance Standardizing DICOM metadata may help streamline radiology workflows and image accessibility, benefiting both radiologists and other healthcare professionals.
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.