This paper aims to provide a review of the basis for application of AI in radiology, to discuss the immediate ethical and professional impact in radiology, and to consider possible future evolution. Even if AI does add significant value to image interpretation, there are implications outside the traditional radiology activities of lesion detection and characterisation. In radiomics, AI can foster the analysis of the features and help in the correlation with other omics data. Imaging biobanks would become a necessary infrastructure to organise and share the image data from which AI models can be trained. AI can be used as an optimising tool to assist the technologist and radiologist in choosing a personalised patient’s protocol, tracking the patient’s dose parameters, providing an estimate of the radiation risks. AI can also aid the reporting workflow and help the linking between words, images, and quantitative data. Finally, AI coupled with CDS can improve the decision process and thereby optimise clinical and radiological workflow.

In this systematic review, after adjustment for patients' hemodynamic condition at presentation, a benefit in 30-day mortality for endovascular repair compared with open surgery for patients with a ruptured AAA was observed, but it was not statistically significant.

Differences among the guidelines imply important variation in allocation of preventive interventions. To make informed decisions, physicians should use only the recommendations from rigorously developed guidelines.

Background Well differentiated liposarcoma (WDLPS) can be difficult to distinguish from lipoma. Currently, this distinction is made by testing for MDM2 amplification, which requires a biopsy. The aim of this study was to develop a noninvasive method to predict MDM2 amplification status using radiomics features derived from MRI. Methods Patients with an MDM2‐negative lipoma or MDM2‐positive WDLPS and a pretreatment T1‐weighted MRI scan who were referred to Erasmus MC between 2009 and 2018 were included. When available, other MRI sequences were included in the radiomics analysis. Features describing intensity, shape and texture were extracted from the tumour region. Classification was performed using various machine learning approaches. Evaluation was performed through a 100 times random‐split cross‐validation. The performance of the models was compared with the performance of three expert radiologists. Results The data set included 116 tumours (58 patients with lipoma, 58 with WDLPS) and originated from 41 different MRI scanners, resulting in wide heterogeneity in imaging hardware and acquisition protocols. The radiomics model based on T1 imaging features alone resulted in a mean area under the curve (AUC) of 0·83, sensitivity of 0·68 and specificity of 0·84. Adding the T2‐weighted imaging features in an explorative analysis improved the model to a mean AUC of 0·89, sensitivity of 0·74 and specificity of 0·88. The three radiologists scored an AUC of 0·74 and 0·72 and 0·61 respectively; a sensitivity of 0·74, 0·91 and 0·64; and a specificity of 0·55, 0·36 and 0·59. Conclusion Radiomics is a promising, non‐invasive method for differentiating between WDLPS and lipoma, outperforming the scores of the radiologists. Further optimization and validation is needed before introduction into clinical practice.