Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the potential benefits of adopting new technology with the imperative to ensure patient safety, data integrity, and regulatory compliance within the specific context of Pan-Asian healthcare systems. The rapid evolution of AI in radiology necessitates a structured, evidence-based approach to adoption, rather than a reactive or purely opportunistic one. Careful judgment is required to navigate the complexities of vendor claims, integration challenges, and the ethical implications of AI-assisted diagnostics. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a phased, evidence-based implementation strategy that prioritizes rigorous validation and pilot testing within the specific clinical environment. This approach, which begins with a thorough assessment of the AI tool’s performance against established benchmarks and its seamless integration into existing workflows, ensures that the technology is not only effective but also safe and compliant with relevant Pan-Asian regulatory guidelines for medical devices and data privacy. It allows for early identification of potential issues, refinement of protocols, and comprehensive training of staff before widespread deployment, thereby mitigating risks to patient care and institutional reputation. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Adopting the AI tool solely based on vendor testimonials and its perceived market leadership fails to acknowledge the critical need for independent validation. Regulatory bodies in Pan-Asia typically require evidence of efficacy and safety specific to the intended use and patient population, which vendor claims alone cannot satisfy. This approach risks introducing unproven technology that could lead to diagnostic errors or compromise patient outcomes, violating ethical obligations and potentially contravening medical device regulations. Implementing the AI tool immediately across all departments without a pilot phase or adequate staff training is premature and hazardous. This haste overlooks the importance of understanding the AI’s performance in real-world clinical scenarios and the necessity of equipping radiologists and technologists with the skills to use it effectively and interpret its outputs critically. Such an approach increases the likelihood of workflow disruptions, misinterpretations, and potential breaches of data security, all of which are serious regulatory and ethical concerns. Focusing exclusively on cost reduction as the primary driver for AI adoption, without a commensurate emphasis on clinical validation and patient safety, is a flawed strategy. While efficiency is a desirable outcome, it must not supersede the fundamental responsibility to provide high-quality, safe patient care. Prioritizing cost savings over rigorous evaluation can lead to the adoption of suboptimal or even unsafe technologies, which would be ethically indefensible and could result in regulatory scrutiny and penalties. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with clearly defining the clinical problem or opportunity the AI aims to address. This should be followed by a comprehensive literature review and an assessment of available AI solutions, focusing on those with published validation studies relevant to the target population. A critical step is to engage in a rigorous vendor evaluation process that includes requesting detailed performance data, understanding the AI’s limitations, and assessing its interoperability and data security features. Subsequently, a pilot study within the institution, designed with clear objectives and metrics, is essential to validate the AI’s performance in the local context and evaluate its impact on workflow and staff. This iterative process, guided by ethical principles and regulatory requirements, ensures responsible and effective technology adoption.

The control framework reveals a critical situation involving potential compromise of diagnostic image quality and patient safety due to an aging X-ray tube. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing operational efficiency, cost considerations, and the paramount ethical and regulatory obligation to provide accurate diagnoses and minimize patient radiation exposure. A hasty decision could lead to suboptimal imaging, increased retake rates, and potential underdiagnosis or misdiagnosis, while an overly cautious approach might incur unnecessary expenses. The best professional practice involves a systematic and evidence-based approach to equipment management. This includes proactively monitoring equipment performance through regular quality assurance (QA) testing, documenting any deviations from established benchmarks, and comparing these findings against manufacturer specifications and established clinical standards. When performance degradation is identified, the appropriate action is to consult the equipment’s service manual and manufacturer guidelines for recommended maintenance or replacement protocols. This approach ensures that decisions are data-driven, compliant with regulatory requirements for medical imaging equipment, and prioritize patient well-being and diagnostic accuracy. Failing to conduct regular QA testing and relying solely on anecdotal evidence of image degradation is a significant regulatory failure. It bypasses the established protocols designed to ensure equipment is functioning within safe and effective parameters, potentially exposing patients to unnecessary radiation or compromising diagnostic information. Replacing equipment based solely on age without objective performance data is financially imprudent and does not adhere to a structured equipment management policy. This approach lacks the necessary justification for capital expenditure and may not address the actual root cause of any perceived image quality issues. Implementing a repair without consulting the manufacturer’s recommendations or service manual risks an inadequate fix, potentially leading to recurring problems or even equipment damage, which is a failure to adhere to best practices in medical device maintenance and could violate guidelines for safe operation. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety and diagnostic integrity. This involves: 1) establishing and adhering to a robust QA program with defined testing intervals and acceptance criteria; 2) meticulously documenting all QA results and any observed equipment anomalies; 3) consulting manufacturer service manuals and technical specifications for performance benchmarks and recommended actions; 4) evaluating the clinical impact of any performance deviations; and 5) making informed decisions regarding maintenance, repair, or replacement based on objective data and regulatory compliance.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge related to the integrity and fairness of the Applied Pan-Asia Radiologic Informatics Fellowship Exit Examination. The core issue revolves around the potential for a candidate to gain an unfair advantage due to a misunderstanding of the examination’s blueprint weighting and scoring, and the subsequent implications for retake policies. Ensuring transparency and equitable application of examination rules is paramount to maintaining the credibility of the fellowship and the professional standards it represents. A candidate’s perception of unfairness, whether justified or not, can lead to disputes and undermine the examination’s validity. Therefore, a careful and principled approach is required to address such situations. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a thorough review of the official examination blueprint and the candidate’s performance against it, followed by a clear and documented communication of the scoring rationale and retake policy. This approach is correct because it adheres to principles of fairness, transparency, and due process. The examination blueprint, as the established framework for content weighting and scoring, serves as the definitive guide. A detailed review ensures that the candidate’s score accurately reflects their performance according to these pre-defined standards. Furthermore, clearly articulating the retake policy, which is typically established by the examination board, provides the candidate with actionable information and reinforces the established procedures. This aligns with the ethical obligation to conduct assessments in a manner that is both objective and clearly communicated to all participants. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately offering a retake without a formal review of the scoring and blueprint. This is professionally unacceptable because it bypasses the established assessment procedures and could set a precedent for preferential treatment, undermining the integrity of the examination for all candidates. It fails to uphold the principle of consistent application of rules. Another incorrect approach is to dismiss the candidate’s concerns without a detailed explanation of the scoring, citing only the general difficulty of the exam. This is ethically problematic as it lacks transparency and fails to address the candidate’s specific query about blueprint weighting. It demonstrates a lack of respect for the candidate’s engagement with the process and can foster distrust. A further incorrect approach is to suggest that the blueprint weighting is subjective and can be adjusted based on individual candidate feedback. This is fundamentally flawed as the blueprint is intended to be a fixed and objective standard for assessing competency across a defined curriculum. Deviating from it would compromise the validity and comparability of the examination results, violating the principles of standardized assessment. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing such situations should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes adherence to established policies and procedures, transparency, and fairness. This involves: 1. Acknowledging the candidate’s concern promptly and respectfully. 2. Consulting the official examination blueprint and scoring guidelines to understand the precise weighting and assessment criteria. 3. Conducting a thorough review of the candidate’s performance against the blueprint. 4. Providing a clear, detailed, and documented explanation of the scoring, referencing the blueprint and any relevant policies. 5. Clearly communicating the applicable retake policy and the steps involved. 6. Escalating to a senior examination committee or administrator if the situation requires further review or clarification beyond the immediate assessor’s purview. This systematic approach ensures that decisions are grounded in established standards and ethical principles, promoting confidence in the examination process.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between the need for timely patient care and the strict adherence to data privacy regulations, specifically the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) in Singapore. The radiologist must balance the urgency of a critical diagnosis with the legal and ethical obligations to protect patient information. Misjudging this balance can lead to severe legal repercussions, reputational damage, and a breach of patient trust. The decision-making process requires a nuanced understanding of when and how information can be shared, even in emergency situations. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a multi-faceted approach that prioritizes patient safety while strictly adhering to the PDPA. This includes obtaining informed consent for data sharing where feasible, anonymizing or de-identifying data whenever possible before sharing, and ensuring that any disclosure is limited to the minimum necessary for the intended purpose. In emergency situations where immediate consultation is vital and consent is impractical, the radiologist should document the rationale for sharing identifiable data, limit the disclosure to essential clinical information, and ensure the recipient is also bound by data protection obligations. This approach upholds the spirit of the PDPA by safeguarding personal data while enabling necessary medical care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Sharing identifiable patient images and reports directly with a colleague in a different institution without any form of consent or anonymization, even for a quick consultation, is a direct violation of the PDPA. This approach fails to implement any safeguards for personal data, treating it as freely transferable information, which is not permitted. Forwarding the entire patient record, including all demographic and clinical details, to an external platform or individual without explicit consent or a clear legal basis for data transfer is another breach. This over-discloses information beyond what is strictly necessary for consultation and bypasses established secure channels for medical data exchange. Delaying the consultation and diagnosis until formal, written consent can be obtained from the patient, even if the patient is in a critical condition and unable to provide it, could be detrimental to patient care. While consent is crucial, the PDPA allows for exceptions in certain circumstances, such as when the processing of personal data is necessary for the protection of the vital interests of the data subject. This approach prioritizes a rigid interpretation of consent over the immediate well-being of the patient in a life-threatening situation. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a risk-based decision-making framework. This involves first assessing the urgency of the situation and the potential harm to the patient if action is delayed. Concurrently, they must identify the specific data required for the consultation and explore all available methods for data protection, such as anonymization or secure, encrypted channels. If identifiable data must be shared, the principle of data minimization should be applied, sharing only what is absolutely essential. Documentation of the decision-making process, including the rationale for any deviation from standard consent procedures, is critical for accountability and legal protection. Understanding the exceptions and provisions within the PDPA for emergency situations is paramount.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge related to the integrity and purpose of a fellowship exit examination. The core issue is ensuring that the examination accurately reflects the intended scope and objectives of the Applied Pan-Asia Radiologic Informatics Fellowship, while also upholding fairness and transparency for all candidates. Misinterpreting the purpose or eligibility criteria can lead to unfair assessment, potential legal challenges, and damage to the reputation of the fellowship program and its accrediting bodies. Careful judgment is required to align the examination’s design and administration with its stated goals and the qualifications of its participants. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough understanding and strict adherence to the established purpose and eligibility criteria for the Applied Pan-Asia Radiologic Informatics Fellowship Exit Examination. This approach prioritizes the examination’s role in validating a candidate’s competency in radiologic informatics, as defined by the fellowship’s curriculum and the standards set by relevant Pan-Asian professional bodies. Eligibility is determined by successful completion of the fellowship program, demonstration of required practical skills, and adherence to any specific academic or professional prerequisites outlined in the fellowship charter. This ensures that the examination serves its intended function of certifying qualified individuals and maintaining professional standards within the region. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves broadening the scope of the examination beyond the defined competencies of the fellowship to include general medical knowledge or unrelated technical skills. This dilutes the examination’s purpose, making it an inaccurate measure of a candidate’s specific radiologic informatics expertise gained during the fellowship. It also creates an unfair assessment by testing knowledge or skills not covered by the program. Another incorrect approach is to relax or arbitrarily alter the eligibility criteria for candidates. This could involve allowing individuals who have not completed the fellowship, or who do not meet the prerequisite qualifications, to sit for the examination. Such actions undermine the integrity of the fellowship and the value of its certification, potentially leading to the accreditation of underqualified professionals and eroding public trust. A further incorrect approach is to focus the examination solely on theoretical knowledge without adequately assessing practical application or problem-solving skills relevant to radiologic informatics. While theoretical understanding is crucial, the applied nature of the fellowship implies a need to evaluate how candidates can utilize their knowledge in real-world scenarios, which this approach neglects. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach decisions regarding examinations by first consulting the official documentation that defines the examination’s purpose, scope, and eligibility requirements. This includes fellowship charters, accreditation guidelines, and any published examination blueprints. They should then critically evaluate any proposed changes or interpretations against these foundational documents. If ambiguity exists, seeking clarification from the governing body or program directors is essential. The decision-making framework should prioritize the integrity of the assessment, fairness to candidates, and the maintenance of professional standards. This involves a commitment to evidence-based justification for any examination design or administration choices, ensuring they directly support the stated objectives of the fellowship and its exit examination.

The investigation demonstrates a complex clinical scenario requiring advanced imaging interpretation and management decisions. This situation is professionally challenging due to the potential for subtle findings on advanced modalities like CT and MRI, the need to integrate these findings with clinical context, and the ethical imperative to provide timely and accurate patient care while adhering to professional standards. Careful judgment is required to avoid misinterpretation, unnecessary interventions, or delays in diagnosis. The best approach involves a comprehensive review of the advanced imaging findings in conjunction with the patient’s complete clinical history and relevant prior investigations. This integrated assessment allows for a nuanced interpretation of the CT and MRI data, considering potential differential diagnoses and the likelihood of each based on the overall clinical picture. This aligns with the professional obligation to provide evidence-based care and to utilize diagnostic tools judiciously. Adherence to established imaging protocols and reporting guidelines, as well as consultation with relevant specialists when indicated, are crucial components of this responsible approach. An incorrect approach would be to solely rely on the advanced imaging findings without considering the clinical context. This could lead to over-diagnosis or under-diagnosis, potentially resulting in inappropriate patient management. For instance, identifying an incidental finding on a CT scan without correlating it with the patient’s symptoms or history might lead to unnecessary further investigations and patient anxiety. Another incorrect approach is to delay reporting or management decisions due to uncertainty, without seeking appropriate consultation or further clarification. This failure to act in a timely manner can compromise patient outcomes and violates the professional duty to provide prompt medical attention. A further incorrect approach would be to recommend invasive procedures based on imaging findings alone, without a thorough risk-benefit analysis and consideration of less invasive alternatives, especially if the findings are equivocal or have a low pre-test probability of being clinically significant. The professional reasoning framework for such situations involves a systematic process: 1. Thoroughly review all available imaging data (CT, MRI, etc.) and associated reports. 2. Critically evaluate the patient’s clinical presentation, history, and any prior relevant investigations. 3. Synthesize imaging findings with clinical information to formulate a differential diagnosis. 4. Consider the implications of the findings for patient management, including potential risks and benefits of further investigations or treatments. 5. Consult with colleagues or specialists when diagnostic uncertainty exists or when complex management decisions are required. 6. Communicate findings and recommendations clearly and promptly to the referring physician and patient, as appropriate.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the candidate’s desire for efficient preparation with the need for comprehensive understanding and adherence to the rigorous standards expected of a fellowship exit examination. The pressure to perform well, coupled with limited time, can lead to shortcuts that compromise learning. Careful judgment is required to select preparation methods that are both effective and ethically sound, ensuring the candidate is truly prepared rather than merely passing a test. The best approach involves a structured, multi-faceted preparation strategy that integrates diverse learning resources and allows for iterative review and self-assessment. This includes dedicating specific time blocks for reviewing core curriculum materials, engaging with practice questions that mimic the examination format and difficulty, and actively seeking feedback on areas of weakness. This method ensures a deep understanding of the subject matter, aligns with the principles of continuous professional development, and ethically prepares the candidate for the responsibilities associated with advanced practice in radiologic informatics. It prioritizes genuine learning and competence over superficial memorization, which is crucial for patient care and the integrity of the profession. An approach that relies solely on reviewing past examination papers without understanding the underlying principles is professionally unacceptable. This method risks superficial learning and fails to build a robust knowledge base, potentially leading to misapplication of knowledge in real-world scenarios. It bypasses the ethical obligation to achieve genuine competence. Another unacceptable approach is to focus exclusively on high-yield topics identified through informal channels, neglecting other critical areas of the curriculum. This strategy is ethically problematic as it suggests an intent to circumvent the full scope of required knowledge, potentially leaving the candidate unprepared for unexpected challenges or less common but important aspects of radiologic informatics. It prioritizes perceived efficiency over comprehensive preparedness. Finally, an approach that involves cramming information in the final days before the examination, without prior consistent study, is also professionally deficient. This method is unlikely to foster deep understanding or long-term retention, increasing the risk of errors and inadequate decision-making in practice. It demonstrates a lack of commitment to thorough preparation and professional responsibility. Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes comprehensive learning, ethical conduct, and evidence-based preparation strategies. This involves setting realistic study goals, utilizing a variety of reputable resources, engaging in active recall and spaced repetition, and seeking opportunities for feedback and self-correction. The ultimate aim should be to achieve mastery of the subject matter, not merely to pass an examination.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent risks associated with contrast media administration, particularly in a patient with pre-existing renal impairment. The radiologist must balance the diagnostic benefit of contrast-enhanced imaging against the potential for contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). This requires a thorough understanding of contrast pharmacology, patient-specific risk factors, and adherence to established safety protocols. The decision-making process is complicated by the need to act efficiently within the clinical workflow while ensuring patient safety and informed consent. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment prior to contrast administration. This includes reviewing the patient’s medical history, specifically noting renal function (e.g., eGFR), and considering alternative imaging techniques if feasible. If contrast is deemed necessary, the radiologist should select the lowest effective dose of a low-osmolar or iso-osmolar contrast agent and ensure adequate hydration protocols are in place, as per established guidelines from professional bodies like the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) or the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR). Furthermore, clear communication with the referring physician and the patient regarding the risks and benefits, including the potential for CIN, is paramount. This approach aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, as well as regulatory requirements for patient safety and informed consent. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Administering contrast without a thorough review of the patient’s renal function and without considering alternative imaging modalities represents a failure to adhere to patient safety protocols. This approach neglects a critical risk factor for CIN and could lead to iatrogenic harm, violating the principle of non-maleficence. Proceeding with contrast administration solely based on the referring physician’s request without an independent risk assessment by the radiologist is also professionally unacceptable. While collaboration is essential, the radiologist bears the ultimate responsibility for the safe administration of contrast agents within their scope of practice. This bypasses a crucial safety check and could lead to adverse events. Opting for a higher dose of contrast to ensure optimal image quality, despite the patient’s renal impairment, demonstrates a disregard for established safety guidelines and the principle of using the lowest effective dose. This increases the patient’s risk of CIN without a justifiable clinical imperative, failing to uphold the duty of care. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety. This involves: 1. Information Gathering: Thoroughly reviewing patient history, including renal function, allergies, and current medications. 2. Risk Assessment: Identifying and quantifying potential risks associated with contrast administration, considering patient-specific factors. 3. Benefit Assessment: Evaluating the diagnostic value of the proposed contrast-enhanced examination. 4. Alternative Consideration: Exploring non-contrast or alternative imaging techniques that might achieve diagnostic goals. 5. Protocol Adherence: Following established institutional and professional guidelines for contrast administration, hydration, and post-procedure monitoring. 6. Informed Consent: Clearly communicating risks, benefits, and alternatives to the patient. 7. Documentation: Meticulously recording all assessments, decisions, and patient interactions.

This scenario presents a common challenge in the implementation of new health informatics systems within a clinical setting, particularly in a fellowship exit examination context. The professional challenge lies in balancing the immediate need for system functionality with the long-term implications of data integrity, patient safety, and regulatory compliance. A fellowship exit examination requires demonstrating not just technical proficiency but also a robust understanding of the ethical and regulatory landscape governing medical imaging informatics. Careful judgment is required to prioritize actions that uphold these principles. The correct approach involves a systematic, phased rollout that prioritizes validation and user training before full integration. This begins with a comprehensive technical validation of the new Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) and Radiology Information System (RIS) integration, ensuring data accuracy, interoperability, and security against established institutional protocols and relevant regulatory standards. Concurrently, it mandates thorough training for all end-users, including radiologists, technologists, and administrative staff, on the new system’s functionalities, workflows, and any changes to data entry or retrieval procedures. This phased approach allows for the identification and remediation of issues in a controlled environment, minimizing disruption and potential patient harm. The regulatory justification stems from principles of data integrity and patient safety, which are paramount in healthcare informatics. Adherence to institutional policies and best practices in system implementation, often guided by standards like those from the Joint Commission or equivalent bodies, is also critical. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with a full, immediate system-wide deployment without adequate validation or user training. This poses significant risks to data integrity, potentially leading to misdiagnosis or treatment errors due to incorrect image retrieval or reporting. It also creates a high likelihood of user error and system inefficiency, undermining the intended benefits of the new system and potentially violating patient safety regulations. Another incorrect approach is to prioritize user convenience or speed of deployment over thorough validation and training. While a swift implementation might seem appealing, it bypasses essential quality assurance steps. This can lead to undetected system flaws that compromise data accuracy and patient care, and a poorly trained user base will struggle to utilize the system effectively, negating its intended advantages and potentially leading to breaches of data privacy or security protocols. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to solely focus on the technical aspects of integration without considering the human element. Neglecting user training and workflow adaptation means that even a technically sound system can be misused or underutilized, leading to errors and inefficiencies. This overlooks the critical role of user proficiency in ensuring the safe and effective operation of any health informatics system, which is a core ethical consideration in patient care. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should involve a risk-based assessment. This includes identifying potential impacts on patient safety, data integrity, regulatory compliance, and operational efficiency. A structured implementation plan, incorporating rigorous testing, phased rollout, comprehensive training, and ongoing support, is essential. Professionals should consult relevant institutional policies, regulatory guidelines, and industry best practices throughout the implementation lifecycle.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the critical need to accurately correlate cross-sectional imaging findings with functional anatomy in a complex patient case. Misinterpretation or incomplete correlation can lead to diagnostic errors, delayed or inappropriate treatment, and potential patient harm. The pressure to provide a timely and definitive report, coupled with the inherent complexities of anatomical variations and functional deficits, necessitates a rigorous and systematic approach. Ethical considerations mandate that the radiologist acts in the best interest of the patient, ensuring all relevant information is considered and integrated for optimal clinical decision-making. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic review of all available cross-sectional imaging modalities (e.g., MRI, CT) and their direct correlation with functional assessment data (e.g., PET, SPECT, fMRI, or clinical functional evaluations). This approach prioritizes a comprehensive understanding by meticulously comparing anatomical structures visualized in cross-section with their functional significance as demonstrated by functional imaging or clinical findings. This ensures that any observed anatomical abnormality is contextualized within its functional impact, leading to a more accurate and clinically relevant diagnosis. This aligns with the ethical duty of care and the professional standard of thoroughness in diagnostic radiology. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves solely relying on the anatomical findings from cross-sectional imaging without adequately integrating functional data. This failure to correlate can lead to overlooking subtle functional deficits that might be critical for diagnosis or treatment planning, potentially resulting in a missed or incomplete diagnosis. This approach breaches the professional obligation to provide a complete and accurate interpretation. Another incorrect approach is to prioritize the interpretation of functional imaging data in isolation, without a thorough anatomical correlation from cross-sectional studies. This can lead to misattribution of functional abnormalities to incorrect anatomical locations or an inability to explain the functional findings based on structural integrity, thereby compromising diagnostic accuracy and potentially leading to misguided clinical decisions. This demonstrates a lack of due diligence in integrating all available diagnostic information. A further incorrect approach is to defer the correlation entirely to the referring clinician without performing a comprehensive integration within the radiology report. While collaboration is essential, the radiologist has a primary responsibility to interpret the imaging findings and provide a synthesized report that includes the correlation of cross-sectional and functional anatomy. Abrogating this responsibility can lead to fragmentation of care and potential miscommunication of critical findings. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic workflow that mandates the explicit correlation of anatomical and functional data for every relevant case. This involves a deliberate step-by-step comparison, utilizing anatomical landmarks from cross-sectional imaging to guide the interpretation of functional data, and vice versa. When discrepancies or ambiguities arise, further investigation, consultation with colleagues, or requesting additional imaging may be necessary. The ultimate goal is to provide a cohesive and clinically actionable report that reflects a deep understanding of the patient’s condition.