Medical imaging is undergoing a significant structural transformation. Three interconnected forces are reshaping how services are provided and valued: the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence throughout the imaging process, a stronger culture of measurement that spans from scanner physics to patient outcomes, and a steady increase in demand as aging populations grow. Leaders who see these as separate trends may overlook their combined impact. Together, they indicate a service line that will be busier and more closely examined, with higher expectations for speed, reliability, and fairness. The organizations that succeed will be those that view AI as a core operational tool rather than just a gadget, develop metric systems trusted by both clinicians and regulators, and adjust their capacity to handle the demographic growth now evident in the data.
So, where do we start? First, start with the demand side.
Forecasting work published this year projects that imaging volume growth in the
United States through mid-century will be primarily driven by population
growth, with aging still accounting for a significant share of volume increase
across modalities. The analysis estimates that population growth accounts for approximately
three-quarters of the rise, while aging contributes between 12% and 27%, a
range that varies by modality and service mix. For administrators, that split
matters less than the practical implications. Regardless of payer policy
changes, imaging demand is expected to keep rising, and older adults will
represent a disproportionate share of advanced studies that require higher
complexity and longer reading times. Capacity planning, recruitment, and
technology roadmaps should be aligned with that reality.
Simultaneously, new evidence has clarified the importance of
exposure and appropriateness. A comprehensive U.S. analysis estimated that
current CT use could be associated with a significant future cancer burden,
especially in populations and settings with high usage. The study's central
message is not to reduce or limit scans indiscriminately, but to promote the
combination that leaders already value: the right patient, the appropriate research,
the correct protocol, and the lowest dose that still meets the diagnostic
needs. This is precisely where modern AI and measurement culture intersect.
Second, on the supply side, labor pressure remains a
significant constraint. Multiple surveys and narrative reviews document a
widening gap between posted positions and the availability of radiologists, as
well as high vacancy rates among technologists. Workloads per radiologist have
nearly doubled over the past decade in some settings, while technologist
vacancy rates above 18 percent have been reported. Burnout occurs predictably,
with downstream effects on quality and retention. AI cannot replace clinicians,
but it can offload repetitive tasks, standardize quality checks, and direct
scarce expert attention to the cases that need it most. Evidence is now
accumulating that well-designed AI interventions do more than impress in the
lab; they can reduce time from key intervals and improve reporting throughput
in real practice.
Concrete examples clarify this operational value. Worklist
reprioritization models for pulmonary embolism have proven effective in
reducing report turnaround times and patient waiting times for positive CTPA
studies by prioritizing cases that are likely critical. In acute stroke,
meta-analytic data and multicenter studies indicate that AI support for
detecting large-vessel occlusion shortens the time from imaging to endovascular
therapy, the critical interval where minutes can make the difference in saving
function. These are not abstract promises; they represent measurable changes in
process segments that leaders monitor on dashboards and discuss in morbidity
and mortality meetings.
Third, AI is also transforming the physics-based aspects of
imaging. Deep-learning reconstruction for MRI has enabled faster scans with the
same or better diagnostic quality in clinical settings, sometimes reducing
routine joint scan times by nearly half. For CT, deep-learning methods have
decreased noise and improved clarity at lower doses across various clinical
tasks, with increasing evidence from both clinical and phantom studies. When
these improvements are incorporated into standard protocols, the impact on
workflow is significant: schedule density can increase without sacrificing
quality, sedation requirements can decrease for anxious or frail patients, and
technologists spend less time repeating studies due to motion or low signal.
Additionally, dose and time savings provide quality committees with tangible
data to monitor.
Fourth: screening offers a different yet equally educational
perspective. In population mammography, an extensive randomized study in Sweden
found that an AI-supported double-reading process maintained cancer detection
rates while reducing workload. Related studies have shown that second-reader
effort can be reduced without compromising safety. Similar research in the
United States has explored the use of generative AI for creating radiography
reports and triage alerts, with live-care implementations demonstrating
approximately 15 percent savings in documentation time while maintaining report
quality. Screening programs are active systems, so even minor efficiency
improvements can lead to more women being screened on schedule and faster
callbacks. Measurement culture is the second key pillar of this shift. The
field has advanced beyond simple quality slogans to a shared set of technical
and clinical metrics that leaders can manage effectively. The Quantitative
Imaging Biomarkers Alliance continues to develop profiles that standardize the
acquisition, processing, and interpretation of diffusion MRI, amyloid PET, and
emerging CT biomarkers. These profiles are not just academic exercises; they
translate into vendor-neutral claims about repeatability that make multi-site
trials possible and routine clinical trending credible. Meanwhile, the ACR
National Radiology Data Registry ecosystem has evolved into a practical
benchmarking framework, encompassing dose indices, lung cancer screening
metrics, and MIPS-qualified measures. Health systems that link their scanners
and RIS to these registries can compare themselves against regional and
national peers, identify outliers by protocol and scanner, and implement
targeted quality improvement cycles rather than broad, low-yield mandates.
Fifth. Reporting itself is part of the measurement story.
Structured or guided reports are more complete and easier to analyze for
downstream insights. European and U.S. reviews agree that templated content,
combined with decision support, enhances completeness. It can reduce reading
and dictation time while preserving radiologists' judgment for the aspects of
the case that resist templating. Generative tools now build on this framework,
producing initial drafts that radiologists then refine and edit, rather than
dictating from scratch. The goal is not to chase novelty but to develop a
reporting surface that is consistent enough for reliable quality metrics and
flexible enough for nuanced clinical reasoning.
Operations leaders should also consider factors beyond the
scanner. Predictive analytics for appointment no-shows and long waits are
advancing, with recent research across outpatient settings, pediatrics, and
radiology demonstrating useful discrimination and actionable features. Once a
practice can identify high-risk appointments with reasonable confidence, it can
implement straightforward, high-impact strategies such as targeted reminders,
transportation support for older adults, dynamic overbooking tailored to
modality and time of day, and expedited outreach for rescheduling. In imaging,
where many appointments are scheduled on limited equipment and in lengthy
slots, even a modest reduction in no-shows frees up capacity that would
otherwise require capital investment.
No account of AI's rise would be complete without addressing
the fairness and safety concerns that clinicians rightly highlight. Several
prominent papers have shown that deep models can infer protected attributes,
such as race, from X-rays and other modalities, even when human readers cannot.
This performance can vary across subgroups or hospitals in unpredictable ways.
A 2024 Nature Medicine study investigated these fairness limits amid real-world
distribution shifts, urging teams to test for demographic encodings and verify
their results beyond their original data. Leaders should take away two key
lessons: first, vendor due diligence must include subgroup performance analysis
and external validation; second, internal QA should monitor equity metrics, not
just overall AUROC. Fairness is an ongoing discipline, not a single hurdle to
clear.
The overall picture is clear. Imaging demand is expected to continue
rising as populations age, while workforce supply is likely to grow at a slower
rate. AI should be viewed as a capacity enhancer across three levels. At the
acquisition level, reconstruction and quality-control models reduce scan times,
minimize repeat exposures, and maintain low doses. At the interpretation level,
triage, detection, and draft-report tools help focus attention where it's most
needed, turning idle minutes into productive reading time. At the service
level, analytics for scheduling, routing, and patient communication help
recover lost capacity and reduce wait times that matter to patients and
referring teams. None of this happens automatically. Improvements occur when
leaders connect technology to a measurement framework they trust, and when
frontline clinicians trust both the signals and safeguards in place.
What does an actionable roadmap look like for the next 12 to
24 months? Start by identifying bottlenecks with time stamps rather than
anecdotes. Track door-to-scan time, scan duration by protocol, report
turnaround time by study type, add-on rate due to repeats, and patient-facing
wait time from order to result. If you aren't already submitting to the ACR
NRDR registries, enroll and connect your data flows; the comparative views will
reveal whether your problems are structural or local. Simultaneously, choose
two or three AI interventions targeting different parts of the process, such as
a DL-reconstruction protocol for a high-volume MRI line, a worklist
reprioritization model for time-sensitive cases, and a no-show risk model to
improve outreach. Set specific goals for each, like a 20 percent reduction in
scan time for knee MRI, a 25 percent decrease in TAT for positive PE studies,
and a two-point reduction in no-show rate for CT. Create evaluation plans that
include subgroup analyses and external benchmarks, where feasible, in
accordance with current fairness standards in the literature.
Parallel work on reporting will pay off quickly. Choose one
high-volume domain, adopt a structured or guided template that your
radiologists help design, and add a constrained generative assistant that
drafts the body and impression with citations to the template sections it
filled: track report completeness, editing time, and additional imaging related
to ambiguous reports. Over a quarter, a well-executed pilot will generate
enough evidence to either scale or pivot.
Finally, keep patients in focus. Older adults, who drive
much of the new demand, also face practical hurdles that lead to missed
appointments and delayed follow-up, including transportation issues, memory
problems, and sensory limitations. Predictive scheduling can highlight risks,
but the intervention still depends on human interaction. A call the day before,
a ride arranged through a community partner, more explicit pre-visit
instructions in larger font, and staff trained to listen for confusion can
determine whether an AI-optimized schedule results in completed studies and
timely care. The combination of precise metrics and simple, humane fixes is
what changes stories at the bedside.
Put simply, the future of imaging is busy and deliberate. AI
provides leaders with tools to manage both. Use it to save time inside the
magnet, direct expertise to the cases where it matters most, and streamline the
processes that move patients from order to answer. Combine these improvements
with a measurement culture that your clinicians trust, and the resulting
service line will be faster, safer, and more reliable for the aging communities
you serve.
Citations
American College of Radiology. (2024). National Radiology
Data Registry. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Registries
Afshari Mirak, S., et al. (2025). The growing nationwide
radiologist shortage. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.232625
Aly, Y. M., et al. (2025). Real-time analytics and AI for
managing no-show appointments. JMIR Formative Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/64936
Batra, K., et al. (2023). Radiologist worklist
reprioritization using artificial intelligence. AJR American Journal of
Roentgenology, 221(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.22.28949
Christensen, E. W., et al. (2025). Projected US imaging
utilization, 2025 to 2055. Journal of the American College of Radiology.
Visser, J. J., et al.
(2024). The marriage between AI and structured reporting in radiology. European
Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11038-2
Comments
Post a Comment