Close Menu
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Subscribe
  • Topics
    • AI/Machine Learning
    • CT
    • Fluoroscopy/C-Arm
    • General Radiology
    • Interventional Radiology
    • MRI
    • Nuclear Medicine/Molecular Imaging
    • PACS/RIS/Informatics
    • Radiation Oncology
    • Radiology Management
    • Reimbursement & Coding
    • Research News
    • Ultrasound
    • Women’s Imaging
  • E-Newsletter
  • Education
    • ARMRIT Annual Meeting
    • MRI Books
    • Webinars
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Resources
    • Product Directories
    • Resource Listing
    • Reprints
    • Writers’ Guidelines

Join Our Email List

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Trending
  • Lending a Hand
  • Whole-Body Makeover
  • Next Phase
  • Beyond Anatomy
  • Editor’s Note: Steps Forward
  • Radiation Safety: Safety Check
  • AI Insights: Balancing the Load
  • Imaging Informatics: Connecting Silos
Saturday, June 20
  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Gift Shop
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Radiology Today MagazineRadiology Today Magazine
Subscribe
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Subscribe
  • Topics
    • AI/Machine Learning
    • CT
    • Fluoroscopy/C-Arm
    • General Radiology
    • Interventional Radiology
    • MRI
    • Nuclear Medicine/Molecular Imaging
    • PACS/RIS/Informatics
    • Radiation Oncology
    • Radiology Management
    • Reimbursement & Coding
    • Research News
    • Ultrasound
    • Women’s Imaging
  • E-Newsletter
  • Education
    • ARMRIT Annual Meeting
    • MRI Books
    • Webinars
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Resources
    • Product Directories
    • Resource Listing
    • Reprints
    • Writers’ Guidelines
Radiology Today MagazineRadiology Today Magazine
Home»Issues»August 2019»Editor’s Note: Alternate Views

Editor’s Note: Alternate Views

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Threads Bluesky Copy Link

By Dave Yeager
Radiology Today
Vol. 20 No. 8 P. 3

There are two sides (at least) to every story, as the saying goes, and that’s as true in medical imaging as in any other aspect of life. Depending on your view, you may think AI is on the verge of becoming ubiquitous or years away from making a significant contribution to radiology practice. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle, but it’s useful to take a closer look at how AI is changing clinical practice.

Our cover feature by Kathy Hardy looks at AI platforms. AI has been generating massive buzz in radiology for a while now, but there are practical concerns that need to be addressed. Chiefly, how will multiple AI algorithms be incorporated into workflow? Most radiologists don’t mind using AI as long as it doesn’t disrupt workflow, but having to stop what they’re doing to consult an app can quickly become burdensome. Clicks matter, and whoever figures out how to best harness AI without diverting radiologists’ attention will likely be poised to fill a large niche in the radiology market.

When it comes to alternate views colliding, nowhere are differences of opinion more hotly debated than in matters of breast screening. In case you haven’t heard, the American College of Physicians updated its breast screening recommendations this past April. The guidelines recommend that women 40 and older who are at average risk of breast cancer discuss screening and mammography with their doctors to weigh the potential benefits and risks. The guidelines go on to say that, in women aged 40 to 49, potential harms outweigh potential benefits. You can probably guess what happened next. Many in the breast screening community feel that the potential harms of breast screening are often exaggerated, and they point out that the studies the ACP based its recommendations on are older and may not have captured important data. Beth W. Orenstein provides an in-depth account of both sides’ arguments on page 16.

While we’re on the topic of decision making, you may have heard that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will require clinical decision support for advanced imaging, beginning in 2020. You probably also heard, at various times in the past, that it would be required beginning in 2018 and, before that, 2017. There’s no indication that CMS has plans to push the date again, but Dan Harvey caught up with some experts who can explain why it’s OK to stop worrying and learn to love CDS … as long as you don’t ignore it.

Finally, Keith Loria has a round-up of imaging displays. A picture is only as good as the medium it’s projected on, and several manufacturers are upping their game.

Enjoy the issue.
david.yeager@gvpub.com

Department Editor’s Note
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email

Related Posts

Editor’s Note: Steps Forward

June 1, 2026

Radiation Safety: Safety Check

June 1, 2026

AI Insights: Balancing the Load

June 1, 2026
  • Facebook
  • X
  • LinkedIn

E-Newsletters

A trusted resource for industry professionals, Radiology Today reports the latest news and information that matters to radiologists, radiology administrators, and technologists.

1721 Valley Forge Road #486, Valley Forge, PA 19481
Phone: 800-278-4400 or 610-948-9500
Subscriptions: 833-790-6897

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn

Subscribe

  • Home
  • Subscribe
  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
© 2026 Radiology Today Magazine. All rights reserved.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.