ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Agentic artificial intelligence in radiology workflow: from image interpretation to report quality control.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiology AI has grown past the single-purpose detector. The newest systems, built around large language models (LLMs), chain together the steps a radiologist actually works through: triaging the worklist, retrieving prior imaging studies, processing images, drafting a structured report, checking for mistakes. When these modules are coordinated through an orchestration layer, they form a multi-agent system capable of managing multiple stages of the radiology workflow-software that handles stretches of the radiology pipeline with less human input at each stage. This review maps the evidence behind that shift, drawing on PubMed-indexed studies from 2023 to 2026. We begin with convolutional neural networks and foundation models, then follow the emergence of AI agents that observe, plan, and act inside clinical environments. We examine multi-agent architectures-specialized agents for image analysis, report drafting, error detection, and decision support-and ask what they actually deliver. So far, the data tell a consistent story: multi-agent cross-verification drives hallucination rates down; intelligent worklist triage cuts report turnaround time by up to 43.7% in some settings; GPT-4 catches 82.7% of report errors, matching human readers. But nearly all of this evidence comes from single-center, retrospective studies on curated data. Every systematic review reaches the same conclusion: the technology works in the lab and has not been proven in the clinic. We also discuss compound opacity-how layered agent interactions make decisions harder to trace-alongside poor reporting standards and a regulatory framework that was not designed for generative, continuously-adaptive software. Agentic AI, including multi-agent architectures, could reshape how radiology departments operate, but the field needs prospective, multi-center trials with standardized endpoints before claiming it already has.
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.