Delayed Gadolinium Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Cartilage (dGEMRIC) was first introduced in 1996 by Bashir et al. as a method of indirectly evaluating glycosaminoglycan (GAG) changes in cartilage microstructure. Following publications originating from the Boston Children’s research group describing the association of early joint failure following periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) in patients with diminished preoperative cartilage T1 relaxation values, the interest in this imaging technique spread. dGEMRIC imaging was introduced into our clinical practice in 2013 with enrollment of both pediatric and adult patients. However, since the program’s apex in 2015, a marked decline in referral of adolescent patients for preoperative dGEMRIC imaging has occurred. Using data acquired during a quality analysis of the dGEMRIC program, this project was designed to investigate the utility of the dGEMRIC exam in our adolescent imaging cohort from 2013-2015 and to identify potential factors leading to decreased utilization from 2015-2018.

Real-time execution of machine learning (ML) pipelines on radiology images is difficult due to limited computing resources in clinical environments, whereas running them in research clusters requires efficient data transfer capabilities. We developed Niffler, an open-source Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) framework that enables ML and processing pipelines in research clusters by efficiently retrieving images from the hospitals’ PACS and extracting the metadata from the images. We deployed Niffler at our institution (Emory Healthcare, the largest healthcare network in the state of Georgia) and retrieved data from 715 scanners spanning 12 sites, up to 350 GB/day continuously in real-time as a DICOM data stream over the past 2 years. We also used Niffler to retrieve images bulk on-demand based on user-provided filters to facilitate several research projects. This paper presents the architecture and three such use cases of Niffler. First, we executed an IVC filter detection and segmentation pipeline on abdominal radiographs in real-time, which was able to classify 989 test images with an accuracy of 96.0%. Second, we applied the Niffler Metadata Extractor to understand the operational efficiency of individual MRI systems based on calculated metrics. We benchmarked the accuracy of the calculated exam time windows by comparing Niffler against the Clinical Data Warehouse (CDW). Niffler accurately identified the scanners’ examination timeframes and idling times, whereas CDW falsely depicted several exam overlaps due to human errors. Third, with metadata extracted from the images by Niffler, we identified scanners with misconfigured time and reconfigured five scanners. Our evaluations highlight how Niffler enables real-time ML and processing pipelines in a research cluster.

This is a condensed summary of an international multisociety statement on ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology produced by the ACR, European Society of Radiology, RSNA, Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine, European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics, Canadian Association of Radiologists, and American Association of Physicists in Medicine. AI has great potential to increase efficiency and accuracy throughout radiology, but also carries inherent pitfalls and biases. Widespread use of AI-based intelligent and autonomous systems in radiology can increase the risk of systemic errors with high consequence, and highlights complex ethical and societal issues. Currently, there is little experience using AI for patient care in diverse clinical settings. Extensive research is needed to understand how to best deploy AI in clinical practice. This statement highlights our consensus that ethical use of AI in radiology should promote well-being, minimize harm, and ensure that the benefits and harms are distributed among stakeholders in a just manner. We believe AI should respect human rights and freedoms, including dignity and privacy. It should be designed for maximum transparency and dependability. Ultimate responsibility and accountability for AI remains with its human designers and operators for the foreseeable future. The radiology community should start now to develop codes of ethics and practice for AI which promote any use that helps patients and the common good and should block use of radiology data and algorithms for financial gain without those two attributes.