Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42534994›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in radiology2026

From plug-and-play to institution-calibrated radiology AI: a practical framework for operationalizing local validation, monitoring and governance.

Muhammad Awais, Abdul Rehman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Muhammad AwaisDepartment of Radiology, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan.
Abdul RehmanDepartment of Medicine, TidalHealth Peninsula Regional, Salisbury, MD, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiology artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly developed on large external datasets and deployed across institutions, but real-world model performance may vary substantially after implementation. Imaging AI interacts with a local ecosystem shaped by scanner hardware, acquisition protocols, reconstruction methods, technologist practices, disease prevalence, patient demographics, reporting conventions, and clinical workflow. These factors can produce domain shift, degrade calibration, alter false-positive and false-negative patterns, and affect clinical utility. In this article, we argue that radiology AI should move beyond a "plug-and-play" deployment paradigm toward institution-calibrated AI stewardship. We propose an institution-specific radiology AI performance profile, conceptually analogous to a local antibiogram, to summarize how AI tools perform within a specific clinical environment. Unlike prior MLOps and radiology AI governance frameworks, the proposed profile translates lifecycle management into a radiology-specific, locally maintainable artifact that captures technical context, clinical context, performance metrics, reference standards, equity checks, workflow effects, and governance triggers. The framework applies not only to diagnostic decision support, but also to research cohort generation and radiology education, where local reporting language, imaging protocols, and case mix may strongly influence model reliability. We emphasize that institution-specific calibration does not require every hospital to develop AI models

Indexed as

algorithm performance monitoringdomain shiftlocal validationmodel governanceradiology artificial intelligence

Identifiers

PMID42534994
PMCPMC13422437

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.