The replacement-augmentation paradox: techno-perceptual dynamics of AI adoption in medical imaging and the future of work

IF 6.1 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Syed Mohammad Waheed
{"title":"The replacement-augmentation paradox: techno-perceptual dynamics of AI adoption in medical imaging and the future of work","authors":"Syed Mohammad Waheed","doi":"10.1007/s00146-026-03145-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology has garnered significant attention across both research and practice over the last decade. However, opinions on whether AI will augment or replace radiologists in their work have so far been divided, and the debate around this continues to linger. This article conceptually structures and terms this phenomenon as the “replacement-augmentation paradox” of AI in radiology—the persistent coexistence of replacement fears and augmentation perceptions within the same professional community. Rather than treating these positions as mutually exclusive or empirically resolvable through performance metrics alone, this article conceptualises the replacement-augmentation paradox as a synthesising framework that structures and interprets divergent, evidence-informed narratives of AI integration in radiology. Drawing predominantly on sociotechnical and perception-based research, this article juxtaposes the two coexistent narratives and synthesises collective observations to shed light on relatively less emphasised aspects shaping replacement-augmentation debates. The findings obtained here explicate the implementation of AI tools (such as deep learning) for medical imaging and early diagnosis in radiology through a proposed “techno-perceptual” framework where the augmentation and replacement of the existing work practices are both plausible outcomes (O), subject to preconditions. Alleviation of fears and determination of the resultant narrative is thus linked with the provision of three jointly enabling conditions: training (T), evidence (E), and decisional control (C), the presence or absence of which are deemed to be directly consequential in terms of yielding perceptions of augmentation or replacement, respectively. The importance and interplay of these factors are delineated here through the novel Boolean equation O = T ∧ E ∧ C, a corresponding logical table, a process flow diagram, and a radiologist typology matrix depicting four professional archetypes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"41 9","pages":"8481 - 8493"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-026-03145-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology has garnered significant attention across both research and practice over the last decade. However, opinions on whether AI will augment or replace radiologists in their work have so far been divided, and the debate around this continues to linger. This article conceptually structures and terms this phenomenon as the “replacement-augmentation paradox” of AI in radiology—the persistent coexistence of replacement fears and augmentation perceptions within the same professional community. Rather than treating these positions as mutually exclusive or empirically resolvable through performance metrics alone, this article conceptualises the replacement-augmentation paradox as a synthesising framework that structures and interprets divergent, evidence-informed narratives of AI integration in radiology. Drawing predominantly on sociotechnical and perception-based research, this article juxtaposes the two coexistent narratives and synthesises collective observations to shed light on relatively less emphasised aspects shaping replacement-augmentation debates. The findings obtained here explicate the implementation of AI tools (such as deep learning) for medical imaging and early diagnosis in radiology through a proposed “techno-perceptual” framework where the augmentation and replacement of the existing work practices are both plausible outcomes (O), subject to preconditions. Alleviation of fears and determination of the resultant narrative is thus linked with the provision of three jointly enabling conditions: training (T), evidence (E), and decisional control (C), the presence or absence of which are deemed to be directly consequential in terms of yielding perceptions of augmentation or replacement, respectively. The importance and interplay of these factors are delineated here through the novel Boolean equation O = T ∧ E ∧ C, a corresponding logical table, a process flow diagram, and a radiologist typology matrix depicting four professional archetypes.

替代-增强悖论:人工智能在医学成像和未来工作中应用的技术-感知动态
在过去十年中,人工智能(AI)在放射学中的应用在研究和实践中都引起了极大的关注。然而,到目前为止,关于人工智能是否会增强或取代放射科医生的工作,人们的看法一直存在分歧,围绕这一问题的争论仍在继续。这篇文章从概念上构建了这种现象,并将其称为放射学中人工智能的“替代-增强悖论”——在同一个专业社区中,替代恐惧和增强感知持续共存。本文将替代增强悖论概念化为一个综合框架,该框架构建和解释了放射学中人工智能集成的不同的、有证据的叙述,而不是将这些立场视为相互排斥或仅通过绩效指标来经验地解决。本文主要以社会技术和基于感知的研究为基础,将两种共存的叙述并列,并综合集体观察,以阐明形成替代增强辩论的相对较少强调的方面。本文获得的研究结果通过提出的“技术感知”框架阐明了人工智能工具(如深度学习)在医学成像和放射学早期诊断中的实施,其中增强和替代现有工作实践都是可行的结果(O),但须符合先决条件。因此,恐惧的缓解和由此产生的叙事的确定与三个共同支持条件的提供有关:培训(T),证据(E)和决策控制(C),它们的存在或不存在被认为是产生增强或替代观念的直接后果。本文通过新颖的布尔方程O = T∧E∧C、相应的逻辑表、流程图和描述四种专业原型的放射科医生类型矩阵来描述这些因素的重要性和相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AI & Society
AI & Society COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
257
期刊介绍: AI & Society: Knowledge, Culture and Communication, is an International Journal publishing refereed scholarly articles, position papers, debates, short communications, and reviews of books and other publications. Established in 1987, the Journal focuses on societal issues including the design, use, management, and policy of information, communications and new media technologies, with a particular emphasis on cultural, social, cognitive, economic, ethical, and philosophical implications. AI & Society has a broad scope and is strongly interdisciplinary. We welcome contributions and participation from researchers and practitioners in a variety of fields including information technologies, humanities, social sciences, arts and sciences. This includes broader societal and cultural impacts, for example on governance, security, sustainability, identity, inclusion, working life, corporate and community welfare, and well-being of people. Co-authored articles from diverse disciplines are encouraged. AI & Society seeks to promote an understanding of the potential, transformative impacts and critical consequences of pervasive technology for societies. Technological innovations, including new sciences such as biotech, nanotech and neuroscience, offer a great potential for societies, but also pose existential risk. Rooted in the human-centred tradition of science and technology, the Journal acts as a catalyst, promoter and facilitator of engagement with diversity of voices and over-the-horizon issues of arts, science, technology and society. AI & Society expects that, in keeping with the ethos of the journal, submissions should provide a substantial and explicit argument on the societal dimension of research, particularly the benefits, impacts and implications for society. This may include factors such as trust, biases, privacy, reliability, responsibility, and competence of AI systems. Such arguments should be validated by critical comment on current research in this area. Curmudgeon Corner will retain its opinionated ethos. The journal is in three parts: a) full length scholarly articles; b) strategic ideas, critical reviews and reflections; c) Student Forum is for emerging researchers and new voices to communicate their ongoing research to the wider academic community, mentored by the Journal Advisory Board; Book Reviews and News; Curmudgeon Corner for the opinionated. Papers in the Original Section may include original papers, which are underpinned by theoretical, methodological, conceptual or philosophical foundations. The Open Forum Section may include strategic ideas, critical reviews and potential implications for society of current research. Network Research Section papers make substantial contributions to theoretical and methodological foundations within societal domains. These will be multi-authored papers that include a summary of the contribution of each author to the paper. Original, Open Forum and Network papers are peer reviewed. The Student Forum Section may include theoretical, methodological, and application orientations of ongoing research including case studies, as well as, contextual action research experiences. Papers in this section are normally single-authored and are also formally reviewed. Curmudgeon Corner is a short opinionated column on trends in technology, arts, science and society, commenting emphatically on issues of concern to the research community and wider society. Normal word length: Original and Network Articles 10k, Open Forum 8k, Student Forum 6k, Curmudgeon 1k. The exception to the co-author limit of Original and Open Forum (4), Network (10), Student (3) and Curmudgeon (2) articles will be considered for their special contributions. Please do not send your submissions by email but use the "Submit manuscript" button. NOTE TO AUTHORS: The Journal expects its authors to include, in their submissions: a) An acknowledgement of the pre-accept/pre-publication versions of their manuscripts on non-commercial and academic sites. b) Images: obtain permissions from the copyright holder/original sources. c) Formal permission from their ethics committees when conducting studies with people.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书