Medical imaging has come a long way. What started with X-rays has expanded over the years into CT, MRI, ultrasound, and now a new wave of tools that promise faster scans: AI-assisted interpretation and portable machines that can be wheeled right to the bedside.
These advances raise expectations for sharper diagnosis and more efficient care, but they also raise questions about cost and whether the benefit is worth the disruption.
A recent Sermo poll shows just how divided physicians are in daily practice. A quarter of surveyed physicians say advanced imaging is fully integrated into their workflow, and another 35% use it selectively for complex cases. But 31% either haven’t adopted it widely or don’t use it in-house at all.
That rough 60/40 split tells us there’s more going on beneath the surface. This article digs into the poll data and Sermo member commentary to explore what’s driving adoption and what’s holding it back in 2025.
What factors influence the adoption of medical imaging tools?
For all the talk about new scanners and AI add-ons, physicians tend to strip decisions back to the basics: does this technology genuinely improve patient care? And what are the benefits of medical imaging technology?
In a Sermo poll, more than half of respondents (54%) said clinical benefit and diagnostic accuracy were the most important factors in deciding whether to adopt new imaging tools. Everything else, like return on investment (14%), workflow compatibility (14%), leadership direction (8%) or patient demand (7%) lagged far behind.
This suggests that doctors won’t fight for a new tool unless it improves diagnostics or makes their decisions more reliable. As one internist put it, “Advanced imaging holds undeniable potential to elevate diagnostics, but its adoption must be driven by clinical value rather than technological enthusiasm alone.”
That sentiment mirrors what we’re starting to see in recent research. A 2024 multi-center study in outpatient radiology found that AI-assisted interpretation of X-rays cut report turnaround times by up to 82% while maintaining diagnostic sensitivity of 96.9% for fracture detection. The researchers noted that faster reads not only helped physicians make decisions sooner but also reduced patient backlogs. Yet they cautioned that the gains depend on workflow integration and adequate oversight, precisely the same concerns raised by Sermo members.
A Radiology resident echoed the same tension from a different angle, noting that while imaging can guide diagnosis and treatment, it isn’t always necessary and comes with its own risks: “Many of these tests are not always strictly necessary… they expose patients to high levels of radiation.” In other words, “clinical benefit” isn’t only about better scans, it’s about when it is appropriate to use advanced tools like CT, MRI or AI-enabled ultrasound, and when more conventional imaging techniques still suffice. Several recent comparative studies back this up, showing that while advanced imaging improves lesion detection in Oncology and Neurology, the outcome gains can be modest unless imaging changes the treatment plan.
Physicians are also clear that value alone doesn’t guarantee adoption. The poll on Sermo shows ROI and workflow compatibility ranked lower in importance, but in practice, they often become gatekeepers, particularly for small, physician-owned practices where costs are considered more closely than large hospital systems. One internist on Sermo summed it up bluntly: “Too expensive and too many barriers for a solo practitioner.”
The technology itself adds pressure to that calculation. Portable MRI scanners that can be wheeled up to a patient’s bedside, like Hyperfine’s Swoop, are transforming point-of-care imaging by reducing scan times and infrastructure needs, but at a cost (around $250,000 per machine) that can still be too much for smaller facilities. Physicians see the promise, but they’re wary of being early adopters without clear ROI.
Finally, the data shows how little sway top-down pressure carries. Just 7% said patient demand and 8% said leadership decisions influence adoption. A GP added that imaging only brings value when the economics and training line up: “I only see it adding real value when it fits the clinical needs of my patients, my team is trained to use it well, and the costs are balanced by clear improvements in outcomes.” Clinical benefit may open the door, but costs and workflows decide whether physicians can actually walk through it. As another Sermo member explained, “Newer does not always mean better; increased cost of implementation may not justify degree of improvement compared to existing protocols.”
The lesson is that physicians resist external pressures unless they align with evidence and clinical judgment. Adoption remains firmly clinician-led.
What are the biggest barriers to adopting new imaging tools?
If clinical value is what pushes physicians toward adoption, cost is what pulls them back.
In the Sermo poll, 44% of respondents said cost and unclear ROI were the single biggest barrier to integrating new imaging into their workflow. That headline number might look obvious, but the comments show cost is never just about the sticker price of a scanner. In this case, it’s about sustainability and the hidden ecosystem of budgets, maintenance and equity.
One stomatologist working in a public hospital described it bluntly: “The obstacles are the cost, and since I work in a public hospital, we don’t have many new imaging technologies because there’s no budget, and the equipment we do have is in a bad state because we don’t have the personnel to repair it.”
Another internist was more succinct: “Cost is, as always, the rate-limiting factor for getting new technologies implemented.” For solo practitioners, it can be a non-starter. For public hospitals, it’s a question of whether tools will break down faster than they can be repaired.
Training came second in the poll, with 18% pointing to lack of support. Here again, the concern is less about ticking a certification box and more about confidence. As one dermatologist noted, “Update courses would also be helpful to know exactly what is approved… as well as expected timelines for approval of new technology.” And an anesthesiologist voiced the fatigue many feel when facing new tools: “Bad enough having to adapt to using ultrasound — can’t imagine incorporating another imaging technique.” Without training, advanced imaging feels like one more burden, not an upgrade.
Then there’s the “hidden tax” of adoption: IT headaches and resourcing. 15% of surveyed physicians on Sermo cited system integration, and 9% flagged time or staffing constraints. A GP explained how those frictions play out day-to-day: “Sometimes, limited access, scheduling delays, or lack of system integration can make things more complicated.” Another GP urged phased rollouts to avoid disruption: “Careful piloting, robust training, and staged implementation can mitigate disruption and maximize return on investment.”
These barriers don’t get the same headlines as new AI breakthroughs, but for physicians, they’re decisive. Without funding, training and integration support, even the most impressive imaging technologies risk becoming unused machines in the corner.
How do physicians decide if new imaging is worth the cost?
Even when the clinical promise looks strong, physicians don’t rush to adopt a new imaging tool without a careful vetting process.
In the Sermo poll, nearly half (49%) said peer-reviewed evidence and clinical trials are their primary filter. Another 21% rely first on their colleagues. Much smaller numbers pointed to institutional mandates (9%), vendor demos (7%) or said they rarely get involved (12%).
Physicians have seen enough technologies launched with big promises only to fizzle in real practice. A GP explained it plainly: “I usually look for solid clinical studies, that’s what really matters when deciding if a new imaging tech is worth it. I like hearing what my colleagues say, but at the end of the day, good data is what convinces me.”
Still, numbers alone don’t close the deal. Peer input carries real weight because it’s grounded in shared realities. A GP highlighted how imaging shapes interdisciplinary work: “The pathology department relies on the accuracy of history, imaging and ancillary tests… Grossing procedures can be altered based on relevant imaging.”
Another physician cut to the chase: “Anything that is going to help my patients… Having said that, the new stuff tends to be more expensive and with less evidence. But show me the evidence and affordability, I’m all in.” Peers validate what works under pressure, not just in controlled studies, and that matters. Communities like Sermo make those peer-to-peer conversations possible, giving physicians a space to compare experiences and results as well as get candid insights about how new technologies actually perform in real-world practice.
What doesn’t hold much sway are vendor demos or leadership edicts. A pathologist was blunt: “We do not adopt new technology just for vanity’s sake. We adopt it if and only if it yields a good return on investment.” A psychiatrist added a specialty-specific caution: “Imaging… more often than not adds interesting information that ends up not being clinically relevant or high yield enough to justify the cost to the patient or healthcare system.”
The takeaway is clear: adoption decisions ultimately depend on clinicians. Demos may set the stage and leadership may push, but unless physicians see evidence, peer validation, and clinical relevance, new tools won’t stick.
Looking forward: what role will AI play in the future of medical imaging?
Looking ahead, physicians are cautiously optimistic about advanced imaging tools.
In the Sermo poll, 22% said they’re very likely to expand their use in the next two years, and 41% said somewhat likely, but always with the caveat that it has to align with budgets and goals.
As one orthopedic surgeon put it, “Technology has a cost and financial resources are limited, how can we solve the problem?” Another internal medicine physician hoped cost wouldn’t be the limiting factor, writing, “Advanced imaging seems to be a promising tool… hopefully costs won’t be an important limiting factor… and that this tool will translate into better patient outcomes.” Still, about a quarter of surveyed doctors don’t expect to expand at all. Some say current tools are good enough, others see the barriers as immovable.
And then there’s AI medical imaging tools. It’s where optimism and skepticism collide. Some call it overhyped, others say it’ll soon be the norm, but nearly everyone agrees it will define the next phase of what is used in medical imaging.
AI imaging works by using algorithms trained on vast datasets of medical images to recognize patterns, highlight abnormalities and assist physicians in interpreting scans more quickly and accurately, which all goes a long way to improve accuracy, speed and point-of-care access. But while these tools can highlight what a physician might want to look at more closely, they don’t replace clinical judgment. A doctor still makes the final call, ensuring the diagnosis is accurate and contextually sound.
While many physicians are positive about AI imaging, others believe other advances are being overshadowed by it. For example, one radiologist states, “AI is overhyped but point-of-care (POC) imaging is a gamechanger.” This is not an outright dismissal of AI itself, but a recognition that AI is one strand of the broader imaging revolution enabling point-of-care diagnostics. The real breakthrough is less about how images are interpreted, but rather where they can be captured and used. For many physicians, the biggest step forward is the ability to bring advanced imaging out of the radiology suite and directly to the bedside, making technology serve the clinical moment, not the other way around.
The future depends less on hardware leaps and more on whether AI can integrate smoothly to add clarity, without overwhelming practice.
Key takeaway
Advanced imaging is reshaping diagnostics, but physicians on Sermo make it clear: adoption is about value, not novelty. Clinical benefit drives decisions, while cost and workflow remain the biggest brakes. Evidence and peer validation matter far more than vendor demos or leadership pressure, keeping adoption firmly clinician-led.
Looking ahead, most physicians expect advanced imaging use to expand but only if budgets and integration challenges are resolved. And with AI on the horizon, the next phase will depend on whether it genuinely eases practice or simply adds complexity.
The balance between promise and overload is still being written. How do you see advanced imaging playing out in your practice? Have new tools helped you make faster, clearer decisions or added more friction than value?
Share your experience on Sermo and see how your peers are approaching the same challenges.
