Is a score enough? Pitfalls and solutions for AI severity scores

Severity scores, which often refer to the likelihood or probability of a pathology, are commonly provided by artificial intelligence (AI) tools in radiology. However, little attention has been given to the use of these AI scores, and there is a lack of transparency into how they are generated. In this comment, we draw on key principles from psychological science and statistics to elucidate six human factors limitations of AI scores that undermine their utility: (1) variability across AI systems; (2) variability within AI systems; (3) variability between radiologists; (4) variability within radiologists; (5) unknown distribution of AI scores; and (6) perceptual challenges. We hypothesize that these limitations can be mitigated by providing the false discovery rate and false omission rate for each score as a threshold. We discuss how this hypothesis could be empirically tested. KEY POINTS: The radiologist-AI interaction has not been given sufficient attention. The utility of AI scores is limited by six key human factors limitations. We propose a hypothesis for how to mitigate these limitations by using false discovery rate and false omission rate.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Radiology Experimental
Published
2025-07-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-025-00603-z
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.65
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Is a score enough? Pitfalls and solutions for AI severity scores

Michael H. Bernstein, Grayson L. Baird, Marly van Assen, Elizabeth A. Krupinski et al.
1 citations
European Radiology Experimental
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
0.65
article

Is a score enough? Pitfalls and solutions for AI severity scores

Michael H. Bernstein, Grayson L. Baird, Marly van Assen, Elizabeth A. Krupinski, Carlo N. De Cecco, Michael A. Bruno
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Severity scores, which often refer to the likelihood or probability of a pathology, are commonly provided by artificial intelligence (AI) tools in radiology. However, little attention has been given to the use of these AI scores, and there is a lack of transparency into how they are generated. In this comment, we draw on key principles from psychological science and statistics to elucidate six human factors limitations of AI scores that undermine their utility: (1) variability across AI systems; (2) variability within AI systems; (3) variability between radiologists; (4) variability within radiologists; (5) unknown distribution of AI scores; and (6) perceptual challenges. We hypothesize that these limitations can be mitigated by providing the false discovery rate and false omission rate for each score as a threshold. We discuss how this hypothesis could be empirically tested. KEY POINTS: The radiologist-AI interaction has not been given sufficient attention. The utility of AI scores is limited by six key human factors limitations. We propose a hypothesis for how to mitigate these limitations by using false discovery rate and false omission rate.

European Radiology ExperimentalVol. 9(1)
Emory University (US), Brown University (US), Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
0.65
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Is a score enough? Pitfalls and solutions for AI severity scores — Michael H. Bernstein, Grayson L. Baird, et al. · European Radiology Experimental (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS