Search

User-friendly in-field sensing protocol is crucial for the effective tracing of intended analytes under less-developed countries or resources-limited environments. Nevertheless, existing sensing strategies require professional technicians and expensive laboratory-based instrumentations, which are not capable for point-of-care on-site analyses. To address this issue, artificial intelligence handheld sensor has been designed for direct reading of Ni 2+ and EDTA in food samples. The sensing platform incorporates smartphone with machine learning-driven application, 3D-printed handheld device, and cellulose paper microfluidic chip stained with ratiometric red-green-emission carbon dots (CDs). Intriguingly, Ni 2+ introduction makes green fluorescent (FL) of CDs glow but red FL fade because of the coordination of Ni 2+ with CDs verified by density functional theory (DFT), concurrently manifesting continuous FL colour transition from red to green. Subsequent addition of EDTA renders FL of CDs-Ni 2+ recover owing to the capture of Ni 2+ from CDs by EDTA based on strong chelation effect of EDTA on Ni 2+ confirmed via DFT, accompanying with a noticeable colour returning from green to red. Inspired by above FL phenomena, CDs-based cellulose paper microfluidic chips are first fabricated to facilitate point-of-care testing of Ni 2+ and EDTA. Designed fully-automatic handheld sensor is utilized to directly output Ni 2+ and EDTA concentration in water, milk, spinach, bread, and shampoo based on wide linear ranges of 0-48 μM and 0-96 μM, and low limits of detection of 0.274 μM and 0.624 μM, respectively. The proposed protocol allows for speedy straightforward on-site determination of target analytes, which will trigger the development of automated and intelligent sensors in near future., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Shaomin Shuang reports that funding was provided by National Natural Science Foundation of China. Bianxiang Zhang reports that funding was provided by Central Guidance Local Science and Technology Development Fund Project. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This study explores Arab university faculty's views on fully AI-generated assignments and research papers submitted by students, what reasons they give for their stance and how they react in this case. Surveys with a sample of 45 Arab instructors revealed that 98% do not accept AI-generated assignments and research papers from students at all. They gave numerous reasons for their position. If students submit AI-generated assignments or research papers, they would ask them to re-write them. The study recommends raising students' awareness of university policies regarding AI-generated content and introducing faculty and students to AI plagiarism detection tools. Faculty views and recommendations are reported in detail.

ChatGPT, a chatbot released by OpenAI in November 2022, has rocked academia with its capacity to generate papers "good enough" for academic journals. Major journals such as Nature and professional societies such as the World Association of Medical Editors have moved fast to issue policies to ban or curb AI-written papers. Amid the flurry of policy initiatives, one important challenge seems to be overlooked: AI-generated papers are not easily discernible to the human eye, and we lack the right tools to implement the policies. Without such tools, the well-intentioned policies are likely to remain on paper.

This study aimed to assess the ability of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbot to generate abstracts from academic psychiatric articles. We provided 30 full-text psychiatric papers to ChatPDF (based on ChatGPT) and prompted generating a similar style structured or unstructured abstract. We further used 10 papers from Psychiatry Research as active comparators (unstructured format). We compared the quality of the ChatPDF-generated abstracts with the original human-written abstracts and examined the similarity, plagiarism, detected AI-content, and correctness of the AI-generated abstracts. Five experts evaluated the quality of the abstracts using a blinded approach. They also identified the abstracts written by the original authors and validated the conclusions produced by ChatPDF. We found that the similarity and plagiarism were relatively low (only 14.07% and 8.34%, respectively). The detected AI-content was 31.48% for generated structure-abstracts, 75.58% for unstructured-abstracts, and 66.48% for active comparators abstracts. For quality, generated structured-abstracts were rated similarly to originals, but unstructured ones received significantly lower scores. Experts rated 40% accuracy with structured abstracts, 73% with unstructured ones, and 77% for active comparators. However, 30% of AI-generated abstract conclusions were incorrect. In conclusion, the data organization capabilities of AI language models hold significant potential for applications to summarize information in clinical psychiatry. However, the use of ChatPDF to summarize psychiatric papers requires caution concerning accuracy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Declaration of interests All authors declared no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

As any field evolves, so do journals' expectations from authors. As Artificial Intelligence (AI) usage in Health Professions Education (HPE) has evolved, Medical Teacher 's expectations have changed, and previously-accepted paper types are now routinely rejected. This commentary gives some guidance for authors currently submitting AI in HPE papers to Medical Teacher .

Background: Academic paper writing holds significant importance in the education of medical students, and poses a clear challenge for those whose first language is not English. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of employing large language models, particularly ChatGPT, in improving the English academic writing skills of these students., Methods: A cohort of 25 third-year medical students from China was recruited. The study consisted of two stages. Firstly, the students were asked to write a mini paper. Secondly, the students were asked to revise the mini paper using ChatGPT within two weeks. The evaluation of the mini papers focused on three key dimensions, including structure, logic, and language. The evaluation method incorporated both manual scoring and AI scoring utilizing the ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 models. Additionally, we employed a questionnaire to gather feedback on students' experience in using ChatGPT., Results: After implementing ChatGPT for writing assistance, there was a notable increase in manual scoring by 4.23 points. Similarly, AI scoring based on the ChatGPT-3.5 model showed an increase of 4.82 points, while the ChatGPT-4 model showed an increase of 3.84 points. These results highlight the potential of large language models in supporting academic writing. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between manual scoring and ChatGPT-4 scoring, indicating the potential of ChatGPT-4 to assist teachers in the grading process. Feedback from the questionnaire indicated a generally positive response from students, with 92% acknowledging an improvement in the quality of their writing, 84% noting advancements in their language skills, and 76% recognizing the contribution of ChatGPT in supporting academic research., Conclusion: The study highlighted the efficacy of large language models like ChatGPT in augmenting the English academic writing proficiency of non-native speakers in medical education. Furthermore, it illustrated the potential of these models to make a contribution to the educational evaluation process, particularly in environments where English is not the primary language., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Internal medicine physicians are increasingly interacting with systems that implement artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies. Some physicians and health care systems are even developing their own AI models, both within and outside of electronic health record (EHR) systems. These technologies have various applications throughout the provision of health care, such as clinical documentation, diagnostic image processing, and clinical decision support. With the growing availability of vast amounts of patient data and unprecedented levels of clinician burnout, the proliferation of these technologies is cautiously welcomed by some physicians. Others think it presents challenges to the patient-physician relationship and the professional integrity of physicians. These dispositions are understandable, given the "black box" nature of some AI models, for which specifications and development methods can be closely guarded or proprietary, along with the relative lagging or absence of appropriate regulatory scrutiny and validation. This American College of Physicians (ACP) position paper describes the College's foundational positions and recommendations regarding the use of AI- and ML-enabled tools and systems in the provision of health care. Many of the College's positions and recommendations, such as those related to patient-centeredness, privacy, and transparency, are founded on principles in the ACP Ethics Manual. They are also derived from considerations for the clinical safety and effectiveness of the tools as well as their potential consequences regarding health disparities. The College calls for more research on the clinical and ethical implications of these technologies and their effects on patient health and well-being., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M24-0146.

Plain Language Summary: In this article, the author reflects upon recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have led to profound discussions about AI's role in scientific research and education. AI technologies are now capable of summarizing and analyzing large volumes of data, creating presentations, and even drafting parts of scientific papers and grants with minimal human input. With their exponential ongoing advancements, they will become even more capable in doing these tasks. As boundaries between humans and AI blurs, serious questions arise about the future roles, responsibilities, and identity of academic researchers, intellectual property, publishing and grantsmanship, and equity in the world of AI potentiated research., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There has been a policy push in K-12 educational settings towards personalized learning in the last decade. Commercial platforms and learning designers have responded, offering learning tools to support teaching and learning through data-driven insights and recommendations. Trending towards the augmentation or replacing human teachers with non-human technology, this paper argues that personalized learning with human teachers is an entirely different process from personalization with digital twins. Drawing on new materialist thinking, it explores the impacts and implications for discourse concerning teacher quality and disadvantages within educational systems. It clarifies the conflation of the terms "personalized learning" and "personalization" to illuminate the power, positionality, and privilege enabled for some, in conflating terms in Australian educational policy.

Artificial Intelligence in higher education (AIED) is becoming a more important research area with increasing developments and application of AI within the wider society. However, as yet AI based tools have not been widely adopted in higher education. As a result there is a lack of sound evidence available on the pedagogical impact of AI for learning and teaching. This conceptual paper thus seeks to bridge the gap and addresses the following question: is artificial intelligence really the new big thing that will revolutionise learning and teaching in higher education? Adopting the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) as the theoretical foundations, we argue that Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, at least in their current state of development, do not afford any real new advances for pedagogy in higher education. This is mainly because there does not seem to be valid evidence as to how the use of AI technologies and applications has helped students improve learning, and/or helped tutors make effective pedagogical changes. In addition, the pedagogical affordances of AI have not yet been clearly defined. The challenges that the higher education sector is currently experiencing relating to AI adoption are discussed at three hierarchical levels, namely national, institutional and personal levels. The paper ends with recommendations with regard to accelerating AI use in universities. This includes developing dedicated AI adoption strategies at the institutional level, updating the existing technology infrastructure and upskilling academic tutors for AI.

Objective: To assess the current trends in the field of artificial intelligence in medicine by analysing 100 most cited original articles relevant to the field., Methods: The bibliometric analysis was conducted in September 2022, and comprised literature search on Scopus database for original articles only. Google and Medical Subject Headings databases were used as resources to extract key words. In order to cover a broad range of articles, original studies comprising human as well as non-human subjects, studies without abstract and studies in languages other than English were part of the inclusion criteria. There was no specific time period applied to the search and no specific selection was done regarding the journals in the database. The screening was done using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to extract the top 100 most cited articles in the field of artificial intelligence usage in medicine. Data was analysed using SPSS 23., Results: Of the 11,571 studies identified, 100(0.86%) were analysed in detail. The studies were published between 1986 and 2021, with a median of 43 citations (IQR 53) per article. The journal 'Artificial Intelligence in Medicine' accounted for the highest number 9(9%)) of articles, and the United States was the country of origin for most of the articles 36(36%)., Conclusion: The trends, development and shortcomings in field of artificial intelligence usage in medicine need to be understood to conduct an effective research in areas that still need attention, and to guide the authorities to direct their funding accordingly.

Digital cytology and artificial intelligence (AI) are gaining greater adoption in the cytology laboratory. However, peer-reviewed real-world data and literature are lacking in regard to the current clinical landscape. The American Society of Cytopathology in conjunction with the International Academy of Cytology and the Digital Pathology Association established a special task force comprising 20 members with expertise and/or interest in digital cytology. The aim of the group was to investigate the feasibility of incorporating digital cytology, specifically cytology whole slide scanning and AI applications, into the workflow of the laboratory. In turn, the impact on cytopathologists, cytologists (cytotechnologists), and cytology departments were also assessed. The task force reviewed existing literature on digital cytology, conducted a worldwide survey, and held a virtual roundtable discussion on digital cytology and AI with multiple industry corporate representatives. This white paper, presented in 2 parts, summarizes the current state of digital cytology and AI practice in global cytology practice. Part 1 of the white paper is presented as a separate paper which details a review and best practice recommendations for incorporating digital cytology into practice. Part 2 of the white paper presented here provides a comprehensive review of AI in cytology practice along with best practice recommendations and legal considerations. Additionally, the cytology global survey results highlighting current AI practices by various laboratories, as well as current attitudes, are reported., (Copyright © 2023 American Society of Cytopathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Digital cytology and artificial intelligence (AI) are gaining greater adoption in the cytopathology laboratory. However, peer-reviewed real-world data and literature are lacking regarding the current clinical landscape. The American Society of Cytopathology in conjunction with the International Academy of Cytology and the Digital Pathology Association established a special task force comprising 20 members with expertise and/or interest in digital cytology. The aim of the group was to investigate the feasibility of incorporating digital cytology, specifically cytology whole slide scanning and AI applications, into the workflow of the laboratory. In turn, the impact on cytopathologists, cytologists (cytotechnologists), and cytology departments were also assessed. The task force reviewed existing literature on digital cytology, conducted a worldwide survey, and held a virtual roundtable discussion on digital cytology and AI with multiple industry corporate representatives. This white paper, presented in 2 parts, summarizes the current state of digital cytology and AI practice in global cytology practice. Part 1 of the white paper presented herein is a review and offers best practice recommendations for incorporating digital cytology into practice. Part 2 of the white paper provides a comprehensive review of AI in cytology practice along with best practice recommendations and legal considerations. Additionally, the results of a global survey regarding digital cytology are highlighted., (Copyright © 2023 American Society of Cytopathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The aim of this study is to present the possibilities of nurse education in the use of the Chat Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) tool to support the documentation process., Background: The success of the nursing process is based on the accuracy of nursing diagnoses, which also determine nursing interventions and nursing outcomes. Educating nurses in the use of artificial intelligence in the nursing process can significantly reduce the time nurses spend on documentation., Design: Discussion paper., Methods: We used a case study from Train4Health in the field of preventive care to demonstrate the potential of using Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) to educate nurses in documenting the nursing process using generative artificial intelligence. Based on the case study, we entered a description of the patient's condition into Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) and asked questions about nursing diagnoses, nursing interventions and nursing outcomes. We further synthesized these results., Results: In the process of educating nurses about the nursing process and nursing diagnosis, Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) can present potential patient problems to nurses and guide them through the process from taking a medical history, setting nursing diagnoses and planning goals and interventions. Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) returned appropriate nursing diagnoses, but these were not in line with the North American Nursing Diagnosis Association - International (NANDA-I) classification as requested. Of all the nursing diagnoses provided, only one was consistent with the most recent version of the North American Nursing Diagnosis Association - International (NANDA-I). Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) is still not specific enough for nursing diagnoses, resulting in incorrect answers in several cases., Conclusions: Using Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) to educate nurses and support the documentation process is time-efficient, but it still requires a certain level of human critical-thinking and fact-checking., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The systematic review of clinical research papers is a labor-intensive and time-consuming process that often involves the screening of thousands of titles and abstracts. The accuracy and efficiency of this process are critical for the quality of the review and subsequent health care decisions. Traditional methods rely heavily on human reviewers, often requiring a significant investment of time and resources., Objective: This study aims to assess the performance of the OpenAI generative pretrained transformer (GPT) and GPT-4 application programming interfaces (APIs) in accurately and efficiently identifying relevant titles and abstracts from real-world clinical review data sets and comparing their performance against ground truth labeling by 2 independent human reviewers., Methods: We introduce a novel workflow using the Chat GPT and GPT-4 APIs for screening titles and abstracts in clinical reviews. A Python script was created to make calls to the API with the screening criteria in natural language and a corpus of title and abstract data sets filtered by a minimum of 2 human reviewers. We compared the performance of our model against human-reviewed papers across 6 review papers, screening over 24,000 titles and abstracts., Results: Our results show an accuracy of 0.91, a macro F 1 -score of 0.60, a sensitivity of excluded papers of 0.91, and a sensitivity of included papers of 0.76. The interrater variability between 2 independent human screeners was κ=0.46, and the prevalence and bias-adjusted κ between our proposed methods and the consensus-based human decisions was κ=0.96. On a randomly selected subset of papers, the GPT models demonstrated the ability to provide reasoning for their decisions and corrected their initial decisions upon being asked to explain their reasoning for incorrect classifications., Conclusions: Large language models have the potential to streamline the clinical review process, save valuable time and effort for researchers, and contribute to the overall quality of clinical reviews. By prioritizing the workflow and acting as an aid rather than a replacement for researchers and reviewers, models such as GPT-4 can enhance efficiency and lead to more accurate and reliable conclusions in medical research., (©Eddie Guo, Mehul Gupta, Jiawen Deng, Ye-Jean Park, Michael Paget, Christopher Naugler. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 12.01.2024.)

Background: In the rapid evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), scientific publishing is experiencing significant transformations. AI tools, while offering unparalleled efficiencies in paper drafting and peer review, also introduce notable ethical concerns., Content: This study delineates AI's dual role in scientific publishing: as a co-creator in the writing and review of scientific papers and as an ethical challenge. We first explore the potential of AI as an enhancer of efficiency, efficacy, and quality in creating scientific papers. A critical assessment follows, evaluating the risks vs. rewards for researchers, especially those early in their careers, emphasizing the need to maintain a balance between AI's capabilities and fostering independent reasoning and creativity. Subsequently, we delve into the ethical dilemmas of AI's involvement, particularly concerning originality, plagiarism, and preserving the genuine essence of scientific discourse. The evolving dynamics further highlight an overlooked aspect: the inadequate recognition of human reviewers in the academic community. With the increasing volume of scientific literature, tangible metrics and incentives for reviewers are proposed as essential to ensure a balanced academic environment., Summary: AI's incorporation in scientific publishing is promising yet comes with significant ethical and operational challenges. The role of human reviewers is accentuated, ensuring authenticity in an AI-influenced environment., Outlook: As the scientific community treads the path of AI integration, a balanced symbiosis between AI's efficiency and human discernment is pivotal. Emphasizing human expertise, while exploit artificial intelligence responsibly, will determine the trajectory of an ethically sound and efficient AI-augmented future in scientific publishing., (© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

This paper presents the case of an adjunct university professor to illustrate the dilemma of using artificial intelligence (AI) technology to grade student papers. The hypothetical case discusses the benefits of using a commercial AI service to grade student papers--including discretion, convenience, pedagogical merits of consistent feedback for students, and advances made in the field that yield high-quality work--all of which are achieved quickly. Arguments against using AI to grade student papers involve cost, privacy, legality, and ethics. The paper discusses career implications for faculty members in both situations and concludes with implications for researchers within the discourse on academic integrity.

Objectives: Paper mills, companies that write scientific papers and gain acceptance for them, then sell authorships of these papers, present a key challenge in medicine and other healthcare fields. This challenge is becoming more acute with artificial intelligence (AI), where AI writes the manuscripts and then the paper mills sell the authorships of these papers. The aim of the current research is to provide a method for detecting fake papers., Methods: The method reported in this article uses a machine learning approach to create decision trees to identify fake papers. The data were collected from Web of Science and multiple journals in various fields., Results: The article presents a method to identify fake papers based on the results of decision trees. Use of this method in a case study indicated its effectiveness in identifying a fake paper., Conclusions: This method to identify fake papers is applicable for authors, editors, and publishers across fields to investigate a single paper or to conduct an analysis of a group of manuscripts. Clinicians and others can use this method to evaluate articles they find in a search to ensure they are not fake articles and instead report actual research that was peer reviewed prior to publication in a journal., (© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

Artificial intelligence refers to the simulation of human intelligence in machines that are programmed to think like humans and mimic their actions. In the present review we chose ten influential papers from the last five years and through Kintsugi, shed the light on recent evolution of artificial intelligence in anesthesiology. A comprehensive search in in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus databases was conducted. Each author searched the databases independently and created a list of six articles that influenced their clinical practice during this period, with a focus on their area of competence. During a subsequent step, each researcher presented his own list and most cited papers were selected to create the final collection of ten articles. In recent years purely methodological works with a cryptic technology (black-box) represented by the intact and static vessel, translated to a "modern artificial intelligence" in clinical practice and comprehensibility (glass-box). The purposes of this review are to explore the ten most cited papers about artificial intelligence in anesthesiology and to understand how and when it should be integrated in clinical practice.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of mLearning or mobile device practice on the attention and accuracy of student's use of math concepts, specifically, telling time. A single subject, alternating treatment design was used to compare mLearning to paper and pencil practice in four 3rd grade male students. Results were mixed; two children were observed to be more on-task during the mLearning practice, and two children were observed to perform similarly across both conditions. Additionally, two children performed similarly on correctly completed problems across both conditions, and two children performed better using paper and pencil practice. All students completed more math problems during the paper and pencil practice.

In the first half of 2023, text-generative artificial intelligence (AI), including ChatGPT from OpenAI, has attracted considerable attention worldwide. In this study, first, we compared Japanese stylometric features of texts generated by ChatGPT, equipped with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, and those written by humans. In this work, we performed multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) to confirm the distributions of 216 texts of three classes (72 academic papers written by 36 single authors, 72 texts generated by GPT-3.5, and 72 texts generated by GPT-4 on the basis of the titles of the aforementioned papers) focusing on the following stylometric features: (1) bigrams of parts-of-speech, (2) bigram of postpositional particle words, (3) positioning of commas, and (4) rate of function words. MDS revealed distinct distributions at each stylometric feature of GPT (3.5 and 4) and human. Although GPT-4 is more powerful than GPT-3.5 because it has more parameters, both GPT (3.5 and 4) distributions are overlapping. These results indicate that although the number of parameters may increase in the future, GPT-generated texts may not be close to that written by humans in terms of stylometric features. Second, we verified the classification performance of random forest (RF) classifier for two classes (GPT and human) focusing on Japanese stylometric features. This study revealed the high performance of RF in each stylometric feature: The RF classifier focusing on the rate of function words achieved 98.1% accuracy. Furthermore the RF classifier focusing on all stylometric features reached 100% in terms of all performance indexes (accuracy, recall, precision, and F1 score). This study concluded that at this stage we human discriminate ChatGPT from human limited to Japanese language., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Zaitsu, Jin. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

In this white paper, the ACR Pediatric AI Workgroup of the Commission on Informatics educates the radiology community about the health equity issue of the lack of pediatric artificial intelligence (AI), improves the understanding of relevant pediatric AI issues, and offers solutions to address the inadequacies in pediatric AI development. In short, the design, training, validation, and safe implementation of AI in children require careful and specific approaches that can be distinct from those used for adults. On the eve of widespread use of AI in imaging practice, the group invites the radiology community to align and join Image IntelliGently (www.imageintelligently.org) to ensure that the use of AI is safe, reliable, and effective for children., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The term Explainable Artificial Intelligence (xAI) groups together the scientific body of knowledge developed while searching for methods to explain the inner logic behind the AI algorithm and the model inference based on knowledge-based interpretability. The xAI is now generally recognized as a core area of AI. A variety of xAI methods currently are available to researchers; nonetheless, the comprehensive classification of the xAI methods is still lacking. In addition, there is no consensus among the researchers with regards to what an explanation exactly is and which are salient properties that must be considered to make it understandable for every end-user. The SIRM introduces an xAI-white paper, which is intended to aid Radiologists, medical practitioners, and scientists in the understanding an emerging field of xAI, the black-box problem behind the success of the AI, the xAI methods to unveil the black-box into a glass-box, the role, and responsibilities of the Radiologists for appropriate use of the AI-technology. Due to the rapidly changing and evolution of AI, a definitive conclusion or solution is far away from being defined. However, one of our greatest responsibilities is to keep up with the change in a critical manner. In fact, ignoring and discrediting the advent of AI a priori will not curb its use but could result in its application without awareness. Therefore, learning and increasing our knowledge about this very important technological change will allow us to put AI at our service and at the service of the patients in a conscious way, pushing this paradigm shift as far as it will benefit us., (© 2023. The Author(s).)