Narrative review synthesizes digital tools enhancing radiology practice and education, suggesting transformative impact.
<ns5:p>Background Digital technologies have profoundly transformed radiology over the past decade, reshaping both clinical practice and education. Beyond image interpretation, radiologists engage in a wide range of cognitive, technical, and organizational tasks that influence workflow efficiency and patient care. We aimed to provide a structured synthesis of these developments across the full scope of radiological practice. Methods We conducted a narrative review of the literature on digitally augmented radiology, defined as the integration of digital tools, including software applications, connected devices, immersive interfaces, and artificial intelligence (AI), to enhance radiologists’ performance. We organized our findings across four thematic domains: educational augmentation, workflow and cognitive augmentation, hardware and interface augmentation, and organizational and collaborative augmentation. Within each domain, we examined traditional approaches, current digital practices, and emerging trends. Conclusions Digital augmentation tools span a wide spectrum, from web-based learning platforms and flashcard applications to virtual reality (VR) simulation environments, structured reporting systems, AI-assisted triage, voice recognition, advanced workstation peripherals, cross-institutional image sharing, and AI-driven scheduling. Large language models (LLMs) are emerging across all four domains, supporting education, report generation, workflow optimization, and institutional knowledge management. While many of these technologies are already integrated into daily practice, their adoption requires thoughtful workflow integration, awareness of limitations including automation bias and deskilling, and adherence to regulatory and ethical standards. Digitally augmented radiology holds significant promise for enhancing efficiency, reducing cognitive burden, and improving education, provided that human expertise remains central to patient care.</ns5:p>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saliba et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: