Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835
Books209
All textbooksMedical textbooksHuman anatomyOrganisms & biodiversityOther sciences
Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›Open textbooks›Ethical implications of the use of AI-based technologies for medical image classification systems in screening: a qualitative systematic review›References

Continue where you left off ()

GO BEYOND THE PAGEReading is just the beginning.

Turn scientific reading into research. Compare studies, examine evidence, and organize your findings in EvidenceHelix Workspace.

Explore Research Workspace →

Ethical implications of the use of AI-based technologies for medical image classification systems in screening: a qualitative systematic review · References

References

CC BY 4.0 · National Institute for Health and Care Research · approximately 11 min read

  1. IBM. What Is Artificial Intelligence (AI)? 2024. URL: www.ibm.com/topics/artificial-intelligence (accessed 29 August 2024).
  2. Gerke S, Minssen T, Cohen G. Ethical and Legal Challenges of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Healthcare. 2020. URL: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332220/ (accessed 29 August 2024).
  3. Carter S, Rogers W, Win K, Frazer H, Richards B, Houssami N. The ethical, legal and social implications of using artificial intelligence systems in breast cancer care. Breast 2020;49:25–32.31677530
  4. CRUK. Breast Cancer Statistics. 2024. URL: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/breast-cancer#heading-Two (accessed 29 August 2024).
  5. CRUK. Speaking a Thousand Words: How a Cancer Image Collection Is Set to Improve AI Diagnosis. 2021. URL: https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2021/09/08/speaking-a-thousand-words-how-a-cancer-image-collection-is-set-to-improve-ai-diagnosis/ (accessed 29 August 2024).
  6. Gov.UK. Breast Screening: Guidance for Image Reading. 2024. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/breast-screening-guidance-for-image-reading/breast-screening-guidance-for-image-reading#:~:text=Arbitration%20maximises%20potential%20sensitivity%20for,to%20maximise%20specificity%20of%20recall (accessed 16 September 2024).
  7. NHS. Diabetes. 2023. URL: www.nhs.uk/conditions/diabetes/ (accessed 30 August 2024).
  8. Diabetes UK. How Many People in the UK Have Diabetes. 2024. URL: www.diabetes.org.uk/about-us/about-the-charity/our-strategy/statistics (accessed 30 August 2024).
  9. UNS Committee. Automated Grading in the Diabetic Eye Screening Programme. 2021. URL: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/automated-grading-in-diabetic-eye-screening-rapid-review-and-evidence-map (accessed 2 September 2024).
  10. Synapse. The Digital Mammography DREAM Challenge. URL: www.synapse.org/Synapse:syn4224222/wiki/401743 (accessed 29 August 2024).
  11. Hernstrom V, Josefsson V, Sartor H, Schmid D, Larsson AM, Solveig H, et al. Screening Performance and Characteristics of Breast Cancer Detected in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence Trial (MASAI): A Randomised, Controlled, Parallelgroup, Non-inferiority, Single-Blinded, Screening Accuracy Study. 2025. URL: www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(24)00267-X/fulltext (accessed 28 March 2025).
  12. BioSpace. iCAD Announces FDA Clearance for ProFound AI Version 3.0 for 3D Mammography. 2021. URL: www.biospace.com/icad-announces-fda-clearance-for-profound-ai-version-3-0-for-3d-mammography?utm_source= (accessed 12 September 2025).
  13. Lang K, Josefsson V, Larsson AM, Larsson S, Hogberg C, Sartor H, et al. Artificial intelligence-supported screen reading versus standard double reading in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a clinical safety analysis of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study. Lancet Oncol 2023;24:936–44.37541274
  14. Medical S. Transpara: Breast AI Trusted for Better Workflow, Higher Confidence. 2025. URL: https://screenpoint-medical.com/?utm (accessed 12 September 2025).
  15. Lim J, Regillo C, Sadda S, Ipp E, Bhaskaranand M, Ramachandra C, et al. Artificial Intelligence Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy. 2022. URL: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9636573/ (accessed 30 August 2024).
  16. UNS Committee. UK NSC Ethical Framework for Screening. 2021. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nsc-ethical-framework-for-screening/uk-nsc-ethical-framework-for-screening#:~:text=The%20general%20purpose%20of%20public,who%20will%20be%20offered%20screening (accessed 28 February 2025).
  17. WHO. Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence. 2021. URL: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/341996/9789240029200-eng.pdf (accessed 28 February 2025).
  18. Leslie D. Understanding Artificial Intelligence Ethics and Safety: A Guide for the Responsible Design and Implementation of AI Systems in the Public Sector. 2019. URL: www.turing.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-06/understanding_artificial_intelligence_ethics_and_safety.pdf (accessed 28 February 2025).
  19. CAS Programme. CASP Checklist: 10 Questions to Help You Make Sense of a Qualitative Research. 2018. URL: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/qualitative-studies-checklist/ (accessed 29 August 2024).
  20. Colvin JC, Garside R, Wainwright M, Munthe-Kaas H, Glenton C, Bohren M. Applying GRADE-CERQual to Qualitative Evidence Synthesis Findings – Paper 4: How to Assess Coherence. 2028. URL: https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-017-0691-8#:~:text=GRADE%2DCERQual%20(hereafter%20referred%20to,(4)%20adequacy%20of%20data (accessed 29 August 2024).
  21. Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Colvin JC, Gülmezoglu M, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLOS Med 2015;12:e1001895.26506244
  22. Naeem M, Ozuem W, Ranfagni S, Howell K. A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research. 2023. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/16094069231205789 (accessed 29 August 2024).
  23. Specialistinfo. The Definitive Online Directory of Consultants and GPs. 2025. URL: www.specialistinfo.com/ (accessed 28 March 2025).
  24. Aquino YSJ, Carter SM, Houssami N, Braunack-Mayer A, Win KT, Degeling C, et al. Practical, epistemic and normative implications of algorithmic bias in healthcare artificial intelligence: a qualitative study of multidisciplinary expert perspectives. J Med Ethics 2023;51:420–8.
  25. Carter SM, Popic D, Marinovich ML, Carolan L, Houssami N. Women’s views on using artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening: a review and qualitative study to guide breast screening services. Breast 2024;77:103783.39111200
  26. Chen Y, Stavropoulou C, Narasinkan R, Baker A, Scarbrough H. Professionals’ responses to the introduction of AI innovations in radiology and their implications for future adoption: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2021;21:813.34389014
  27. Faric N, Hinder S, Williams R, Ramaesh R, Bernabeu MO, van Beek E, Cresswell K. Early experiences of integrating an artificial intelligence-based diagnostic decision support system into radiology settings: a qualitative study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2024;31:24–34.
  28. Held LA, Wewetzer L, Steinhauser J. Determinants of the implementation of an artificial intelligence-supported device for the screening of diabetic retinopathy in primary care: a qualitative study. Health Informatics J 2022;28:112816.
  29. Helenason J, Ekström C, Falk M, Papachristou P. Exploring the feasibility of an artificial intelligence based clinical decision support system for cutaneous melanoma detection in primary care – a mixed method study. Scand J Prim Health Care 2024;42:51–60.37982736
  30. Johansson JV, Dembrower K, Strand F, Grauman A. Women’s perceptions and attitudes towards the use of AI in mammography in Sweden: a qualitative interview study. BMJ Open 2024;14:e084014.
  31. Johansson JV, Engstrom E. ‘Humans think outside the pixels’: radiologists’ perceptions of using artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in mammography screening in a clinical setting. Health Informatics J 2024;30:275020.
  32. Liao X, Yao C, Jin F, Zhang J, Liu L. Barriers and facilitators to implementing imaging-based diagnostic artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making software in hospitals in China: a qualitative study using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. BMJ Open 2024;14:e084398.
  33. Lyso EH, Hesjedal MB, Skolbekken JA, Solbjor M. Men’s sociotechnical imaginaries of artificial intelligence for prostate cancer diagnostics: a focus group study. Soc Sci Med 2024;347:1–9.
  34. Newlands R, Bruhn H, Diaz MR, Lip G, Anderson LA, Ramsay C. A stakeholder analysis to prepare for real-world evaluation of integrating artificial intelligent algorithms into breast screening (PREP-AIR study): a qualitative study using the WHO guide. BMC Health Serv Res 2024;24:569.38698386
  35. Wenderott K, Krups J, Luetkens JA, Weigl M. Radiologists’ perspectives on the workflow integration of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided detection system: a qualitative study. Appl Ergon 2024;117:104243.38306741
  36. Winter P, Carusi A. Professional expectations and patient expectations concerning the development of artificial intelligence (AI) for the early diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (PH). J Responsib Technol 2022;12:100052.
  37. Zhang Z, Citardi D, Wang D, Genc Y, Shan J, Fan X. Patients’ perceptions of using artificial intelligence (AI)-based technology to comprehend radiology imaging data. Health Informatics J 2021;27:1011215.
  38. Roberts K. Attempting Rigour and Replicability in Thematic Analysis of Qualitative Research Data; A Case Study of Codebook Development. 2019. URL: https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0707-y (accessed 28 February 2025).
  39. Antwi WK, Akudjedu TN, Botwe BO. Artificial intelligence in medical imaging practice in Africa: a qualitative content analysis study of radiographers’ perspectives. Insights Imaging 2021;12:80.34132910
  40. Bhattacharya S. AI boosts diabetic eye screening and follow-up in youth. Clin Endocrinol News 2024:1.
  41. Cheema B, Baylor L, Bhambri R, Ebrahim A, Ahmad FS. A qualitative study of artificial intelligence-based tools to raise suspicion for ATTR cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2024;83:2598.
  42. Davalagi SB, Palicheralu BS, Murthy SSN, Hurlihal S. Acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI)-based screening for breast health in urban slums of central Karnataka, India: SWOC analysis. J Family Med Prim Care 2022;11:6023–8.36618229
  43. de Vries CF, Morrissey BE, Duggan D, Staff RT, Lip G. Screening participants’ attitudes to the introduction of artificial intelligence in breast screening. J Med Screen 2021;28:221–2.33715512
  44. Estai M, Watson M, McCluskey PJ, Kanagasingam Y, Grigg JR, Daire J. Incentives and barriers to diabetic retinopathy screening in Australian general practices. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2021;62:1131.
  45. Gillan C, Hodges B, Wiljer D, Dobrow M. Health care professional association agency in preparing for artificial intelligence: a multiple-case study of radiation medicine and medical imaging in the Canadian context. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024;118:921–30.
  46. Haugsten ER, Vestergaard T, Trettin B. Experiences regarding use and implementation of AI-supported follow-up of atypical moles at a dermatological out-patient clinic; a qualitative study. Acta Derm Venereol 2022;102:31.
  47. Hendrix N, Hauber B, Lee CI, Bansal A, Veenstra DL. Artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening: primary care provider preferences. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021;28:1117–24.33367670
  48. Hendrix N, Lowry KP, Elmore JG, Lotter W, Sorensen G, Hsu W, et al. Radiologist preferences for artificial intelligence-based decision support during screening mammography interpretation. J Am Coll Radiol 2022;19:1098–110.35970474
  49. Henry KE, Kornfield R, Sridharan A, Linton RC, Groh C, Wang T, et al. Human–machine teaming is key to AI adoption: clinicians’ experiences with a deployed machine learning system. NPJ Digital Med 2022;5:1–6.
  50. Ho V, Brown Johnson C, Ghanzouri I, Amal S, Asch S, Ross E. Physician- and patient-elicited barriers and facilitators to implementation of a machine learning-based screening tool for peripheral arterial disease: preimplementation study with physician and patient stakeholders. JMIR Cardiol 2023;7:e44732.
  51. Huang JJ, Channa R, Wolf RM, Dong Y, Liang M, Wang J, et al. Autonomous artificial intelligence for diabetic eye disease increases access and health equity in underserved populations. NPJ Digit Med 2024;7:1–6.38172429
  52. Hurley ME, Sonig A, Herrington J, Storch EA, Lazaro-Munoz G, Blumenthal-Barby J, Kostick-Quenet K. Ethical considerations for integrating multimodal computer perception and neurotechnology. Front Hum Neurosci 2024;18:1332451.38435745
  53. Lachter J, Raz Y, Kobzan A, Suissa A, Bezobchuk S, Makhoul B, et al. Impacts of a novel AI-enabled polyp detection system: a prospective randomized clinical trial. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2022;10:179.
  54. Lennox-Chhugani N, Chen Y, Pearson V, Trzcinski B, James J. Women’s attitudes to the use of AI image readers: a case study from a national breast screening programme. BMJ Health Care Inform 2021;28:e100293.
  55. Libon J, Ng C, Bailey A, Hareendranathan A, Joseph R, Dulai S. Remote diagnostic imaging using artificial intelligence for diagnosing hip dysplasia in infants: results from a mixed-methods feasibility pilot study. Paediatr Child Health 2023;28:285–90.37484038
  56. Manetti S, Cumetti M, De Benedictis A, Lettieri E. Adoption of novel biomarker test parameters with machine learning‐based algorithms for the early detection of sepsis in hospital practice. J Nurs Manag 2022;30:3754–64.36125938
  57. Nelson CA, Pérez-Chada LM, Creadore A, Li SJ, Lo K, Manjaly P, et al. Patient perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence for skin cancer screening: a qualitative study. JAMA Dermatol 2020;156:501–12.32159733
  58. Nothnagel K, Hay A, Watson J, Banks J. AI-guided deep vein thrombosis diagnosis in primary care: protocol for cohort with qualitative assessment. BJGP Open 2024;8:e0165.
  59. Rathmann E, Hemkemeier P, Raths S, Grothe M, Mankertz F, Hosten N, Flessa S. Changes in MRI workflow of multiple sclerosis after introduction of an AI-software: a qualitative study. Healthcare 2024;12:978.38786390
  60. Robertson C, Woods A, Bergstrand K, Findley J, Balser C, Slepian MJ. Diverse patients’ attitudes towards artificial intelligence (AI) in diagnosis. PLOS Digit Health 2023;2:e0000237.37205713
  61. Sachdeva M, Datchoua AM, Yakam VF, Kenfack B, Jonnalagedda-Cattin M, Thiran JP, et al. Acceptability of artificial intelligence for cervical cancer screening in Dschang, Cameroon: a qualitative study on patient perspectives. Reprod Health 2024;21:92.38937771
  62. Sangers TE, Wakkee M, Kramer-Noels EC, Nijsten T, Lugtenberg M. Views on mobile health apps for skin cancer screening in the general population: an in-depth qualitative exploration of perceived barriers and facilitators*. Br J Dermatol 2021;185:961–9.33959945
  63. Saron H, Carter B, Carrol E, Sefton G. An exploration of health professionals’ experiences and perceptions of the clinical utility and acceptability of an electronic paediatric early warning system (The Detect Study). Arch Dis Child 2022;107:A461.
  64. Scheetz J, Koca D, McGuinness M, Holloway E, Tan Z, Zhu Z, et al. Real-world artificial intelligence-based opportunistic screening for diabetic retinopathy in endocrinology and indigenous healthcare settings in Australia. Sci Rep 2021;11:15808.34349130
  65. Winters C, Norton J, Valdastri P, Subramanian V. Patient and endoscopist perceptions of new technologies in colonoscopy. Gut 2023;72:A174.
  66. Youssef A, Nichol AA, Martinez-Martin N, Larson DB, Abramoff M, Wolf RM, Char D. Ethical considerations in the design and conduct of clinical trials of artificial intelligence. JAMA Netw Open 2024;7:e2432482.39240560
  67. Bhandari A, Purchuri SN, Sharma C, Ibrahim M, Prior M. Knowledge and attitudes towards artificial intelligence in imaging: a look at the quantitative survey literature. Clin Imaging 2021;80:413–9.34537484
  68. Brady AP, Allen B, Chong J, Kotter E, Kottler N, Mongan J, et al. Developing, purchasing, implementing and monitoring AI tools in radiology: practical considerations. A multi-society statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, RANZCR & RSNA. Can Assoc Radiol J 2024;75:226–44.38251882
  69. Chen Z, Marrero WJ. A survey on optimization and machine learning-based fair decision making in healthcare. medRxiv 2024. 10.1101/2024.03.16.24304403
  70. Cheung HMC, Rubin D. Challenges and opportunities for artificial intelligence in oncological imaging. Clin Radiol 2021;76:728–36.33902889
  71. Chu A, Squirrell D, Phillips AM, Vaghefi E. Essentials of a robust deep learning system for diabetic retinopathy screening: a systematic literature review. J Ophthalmol 2020;2020:1–11.
  72. EnstrÖM C, Tidstam A, Eriksson MA. Visualizing future breast cancer prognosis by generative AI. Medical Informatics Europe (MIE) 34th conference, August 25–29, 2024, Athens, Greece. Stud Health Technol Inform 2024;316:724–5.39176897
  73. Gordon ER, Trager MH, Kontos D, Weng C, Geskin LJ, Dugdale LS, Samie FH. Ethical considerations for artificial intelligence in dermatology: a scoping review. Br J Dermatol 2024;190:789–97.38330217
  74. Goyal H, Sherazi SAA, Mann R, Gandhi Z, Perisetti A, Aziz M, et al. Scope of artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal oncology. Cancers 2021;13:5494.34771658
  75. Hassan N, Slight RD, Bimpong K, Weiand D, Vellinga A, Morgan G, Slight SP. Clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions of the use of artificial intelligence decision aids to inform shared decision making: a systematic review. Lancet 2021;398:S80.
  76. Hauser K, Kurz A, Haggenmüller S, Maron RC, von Kalle C, Utikal JS, et al. Explainable artificial intelligence in skin cancer recognition: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer 2022;167:54–69.35390650
  77. Hogg HDJ, Al-Zubaidy M, Talks J, Denniston AK, Kelly CJ, Malawana J, et al.; Technology Enhanced Macular Services Study Reference Group. Stakeholder perspectives of clinical artificial intelligence implementation: systematic review of qualitative evidence. J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e39742.36626192
  78. Huang G, Wei X, Tang H, Bai F, Lin X, Xue D. A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance and physicians’ perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted CT diagnostic technology for the classification of pulmonary nodules. J Thorac Dis 2021;13:4797–811.34527320
  79. Lennox-Chhugani N. Artificial intelligence as a driver of shifting power towards patients: how could new technology enable integrated person-centered care? 21st International Conference on Integrated Care (Virtual), May 1–31, 2021. Int J Integr Care 2022;22:1–2.
  80. Mirkin S, Albensi BC. Should artificial intelligence be used in conjunction with neuroimaging in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease? Front Aging Neurosci 2023;15:1–18.
  81. Morgan MB, Mates JL. Ethics of artificial intelligence in breast imaging. J Breast Imaging 2023;5:195–200.38416925
  82. Morley J, Machado CCV, Burr C, Cowls J, Joshi I, Taddeo M, Floridi L. The ethics of AI in health care: a mapping review. Soc Sci Med 2020;260:113172.32702587
  83. Nolan P, Matulionyte R. Artificial intelligence in medicine: issues when determining negligence. J Law Med 2023;30:593–615.38332598
  84. Parker W, Jaremko JL, Cicero M, Azar M, El-Emam K, Gray BG, et al. Canadian Association of Radiologists white paper on de-identification of medical imaging: part 1, general principles. Can Assoc Radiol J 2021;72:13–24.33138621
  85. Parker W, Jaremko JL, Cicero M, Azar M, El-Emam K, Gray BG, et al. Canadian Association of Radiologists white paper on de-identification of medical imaging: part 2, practical considerations. Can Assoc Radiol J 2021;72:25–34.33140663
  86. Ram S, Campbell T, Lourenco AP. Online or offline: does it matter? A review of existing interpretation approaches and their effect on screening mammography metrics, patient satisfaction, and cost. J. Breast Imaging 2022;4:3–9.38422414
  87. Sacca L, Lobaina D, Burgoa S, Lotharius K, Moothedan E, Gilmore N, et al. Promoting artificial intelligence for global breast cancer risk prediction and screening in adult women: a scoping review. J Clin Med 2024;13:2525.38731054
  88. Shrivastava PK, Hasan S, Abid L, Injety R, Shrivastav AK, Sybil D. Accuracy of machine learning in the diagnosis of odontogenic cysts and tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Radiol 2024;40:342–56.38530559
  89. Vedantham S, Shazeeb MS, Chiang A, Vijayaraghavan GR. Artificial intelligence in breast X-ray imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2023;44:2–7.36792270
← ConclusionsAdditional information →

Attribution. Melina Vasileiou; Victoria Wakefield; Clare Dadswell; Steven J Edwards (2026). Ethical implications of the use of AI-based technologies for medical image classification systems in screening: a qualitative systematic review. National Institute for Health and Care Research. Copyright © 2026 Vasileiou et al. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. NCBI Bookshelf NBK623491. CC BY 4.0. Original source ↗. Text reproduced from the Bookshelf XML without changing wording; figures, images and supplements are not reproduced.

In this chapter Contents

  • References

Source

OpenStax source file ↗

Source record ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support