Vera-Garcia, Diana V.

This review explores how multimodal foundation models (MFMs) are transforming biliary tract cancer (BTC) research. BTCs are aggressive malignancies with poor prognosis, presenting unique challenges due to difficult diagnostic methods, molecular complexity, and rarity. Importantly, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA), and distal bile duct cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA) represent fundamentally distinct clinical entities, with iCCA presenting as mass-forming lesions amenable to biopsy and targeted therapies, while pCCA manifests as infiltrative bile duct lesions with challenging diagnosis and primarily palliative management approaches. MFMs offer potential to advance research by integrating radiological images, histopathology, multi-omics profiles, and clinical data into unified computational frameworks, with applications tailored to these distinct BTC subtypes. Key applications include enhanced biomarker discovery that identifies previously unrecognizable cross-modal patterns, potential for improving currently limited diagnostic accuracy—though validation in BTC-specific cohorts remains essential—accelerated drug repurposing, and advanced patient stratification for personalized treatment. Despite promising results, challenges such as data scarcity, high computational demands, and clinical workflow integration remain to be addressed. Future research should focus on standardized data protocols, architectural innovations, and prospective validation studies. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI)-based methodologies offers new solutions for these historically challenging malignancies. However, current evidence for BTC-specific applications remains largely theoretical, with most studies limited to proof-of-concept designs or related cancer types. Comprehensive clinical validation studies and prospective trials demonstrating patient benefit are essential prerequisites for clinical implementation. The timeline for evidence-based clinical adoption likely extends 7–10 years, contingent on successful completion of validation studies addressing current evidence gaps.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical imaging has revolutionized diagnostic capabilities, yet the black-box nature of deep learning models poses significant challenges for clinical adoption. Current explainable AI (XAI) approaches, including SHAP, LIME, and Grad-CAM, predominantly focus on post hoc explanations that may inadvertently undermine clinical decision-making by providing misleading confidence in AI outputs. This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of 67 studies (covering 23 radiology, 19 pathology, and 25 ophthalmology applications) evaluating XAI fidelity, stability, and performance trade-offs across medical imaging modalities. Our meta-analysis of 847 initially identified studies reveals that LIME achieves superior fidelity (0.81, 95% CI: 0.78–0.84) compared to SHAP (0.38, 95% CI: 0.35–0.41) and Grad-CAM (0.54, 95% CI: 0.51–0.57) across all modalities. Post hoc explanations demonstrated poor stability under noise perturbation, with SHAP showing 53% degradation in ophthalmology applications (ρ = 0.42 at 10% noise) compared to 11% in radiology (ρ = 0.89). We demonstrate a consistent 5–7% AUC performance penalty for interpretable models but identify modality-specific stability patterns suggesting that tailored XAI approaches are necessary. Based on these empirical findings, we propose a comprehensive three-pillar accountability framework that prioritizes transparency in model development, interpretability in architecture design, and a cautious deployment of post hoc explanations with explicit uncertainty quantification. This approach offers a pathway toward genuinely accountable AI systems that enhance rather than compromise clinical decision-making quality and patient safety.

Background: Establishing imaging registries for large patient cohorts is challenging because manual labeling is tedious and relying solely on DICOM (digital imaging and communications in medicine) metadata can result in errors. We endeavored to establish an automated hip and pelvic radiography registry of total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients by utilizing deep-learning pipelines. The aims of the study were (1) to utilize these automated pipelines to identify all pelvic and hip radiographs with appropriate annotation of laterality and presence or absence of implants, and (2) to automatically measure acetabular component inclination and version for THA images. Methods: We retrospectively retrieved 846,988 hip and pelvic radiography DICOM files from 20,378 patients who underwent primary or revision THA performed at our institution from 2000 to 2020. Metadata for the files were screened followed by extraction of imaging data. Two deep-learning algorithms (an EfficientNetB3 classifier and a YOLOv5 object detector) were developed to automatically determine the radiographic appearance of all files. Additional deep-learning algorithms were utilized to automatically measure the acetabular angles on anteroposterior pelvic and lateral hip radiographs. Algorithm performance was compared with that of human annotators on a random test sample of 5,000 radiographs. Results: Deep-learning algorithms enabled appropriate exclusion of 209,332 DICOM files (24.7%) as misclassified non-hip/pelvic radiographs or having corrupted pixel data. The final registry was automatically curated and annotated in <8 hours and included 168,551 anteroposterior pelvic, 176,890 anteroposterior hip, 174,637 lateral hip, and 117,578 oblique hip radiographs. The algorithms achieved 99.9% accuracy, 99.6% precision, 99.5% recall, and a 99.6% F1 score in determining the radiograph appearance. Conclusions: We developed a highly accurate series of deep-learning algorithms to rapidly curate and annotate THA patient radiographs. This efficient pipeline can be utilized by other institutions or registries to construct radiography databases for patient care, longitudinal surveillance, and large-scale research. The stepwise approach for establishing a radiography registry can further be utilized as a workflow guide for other anatomic areas. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.