[Medical ML] PACS Integration Strategies for AI-Powered Medical Imaging: A Comprehensive Framework

# PACS Integration Strategies for AI-Powered Medical Imaging: A Comprehensive Framework for Clinical Deployment

**Author:** Oleh Ivchenko, PhD Candidate
**Affiliation:** Odessa National Polytechnic University (ONPU) | Stabilarity Hub
**Series:** Medical ML for Diagnosis — Article 19 of 35
**Date:** February 9, 2026
**Category:** Clinical Workflow Integration

—

## Abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms into Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) represents a pivotal transformation in diagnostic radiology, enabling automated analysis, enhanced detection, and improved workflow efficiency. This comprehensive review examines the technical architectures, implementation strategies, and organizational considerations essential for successful AI-PACS integration. We analyze three maturity levels of integration—research, production, and feedback—providing practical guidance for healthcare institutions seeking to deploy machine learning solutions within existing radiology infrastructure. The framework addresses critical challenges including DICOM interoperability, vendor-neutral archive (VNA) compatibility, real-time inference pipelines, and regulatory compliance. Through examination of deployment patterns from leading institutions worldwide, we identify that successful AI-PACS integration requires not merely technical connectivity but comprehensive workflow redesign, with institutions achieving mature integration reporting 23-47% improvements in radiologist efficiency and 15-31% reductions in diagnostic turnaround times. For Ukrainian healthcare systems, we propose a phased implementation strategy that leverages cloud-based PACS modernization to enable AI augmentation while addressing infrastructure constraints characteristic of emerging healthcare markets. Our analysis demonstrates that the choice of integration architecture fundamentally determines the scalability, maintainability, and clinical utility of deployed AI solutions, with orchestration-layer approaches offering superior flexibility compared to point-to-point vendor integrations.

**Keywords:** PACS integration, AI radiology, DICOM workflow, vendor-neutral archive, medical imaging AI, clinical deployment, radiology automation, deep learning infrastructure

—

## 1. Introduction

The deployment of artificial intelligence in diagnostic radiology has progressed from experimental research to clinical reality, with over 1,200 FDA-authorized AI devices and 500+ CE-marked solutions now available for medical imaging applications. However, the existence of validated algorithms represents only the first step in a complex journey toward clinical utility. The critical challenge facing healthcare institutions worldwide is not algorithm development but integration—seamlessly incorporating AI capabilities into established radiology workflows without disrupting the fundamental operations that ensure patient care.

Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS), introduced in the 1980s and achieving widespread adoption by the 2000s, form the technological backbone of modern diagnostic imaging. These systems manage the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and display of medical images, processing billions of studies annually across global healthcare networks. The integration of AI into these established systems requires careful consideration of technical standards, workflow implications, regulatory requirements, and organizational change management.

This article presents a comprehensive framework for AI-PACS integration, synthesizing technical architectures, implementation strategies, and lessons learned from early adopters. Our analysis reveals that successful integration depends on addressing multiple interconnected dimensions:

**Key Contributions of This Article:**

1. **Maturity Model Framework**: We present a three-level maturity model (research, production, feedback) that provides a structured pathway for institutions at different stages of AI adoption.

2. **Architecture Patterns Analysis**: We analyze six distinct integration architectures, comparing their technical requirements, scalability characteristics, and organizational implications.

3. **DICOM Object Strategy**: We provide detailed guidance on utilizing DICOM Secondary Capture, Grayscale Softcopy Presentation State (GSPS), Structured Reports (SR), and Segmentation objects for AI result communication.

4. **Vendor-Neutral Approaches**: We examine strategies for maintaining platform independence in an ecosystem dominated by proprietary PACS solutions.

5. **Ukrainian Healthcare Contextualization**: We propose specific adaptations for the Ukrainian healthcare system, considering infrastructure constraints, regulatory requirements, and the opportunities presented by wartime healthcare modernization efforts.

The fundamental premise of this analysis is that AI integration is not primarily a technology problem but a systems engineering challenge. The most sophisticated algorithm delivers no clinical value if radiologists cannot efficiently access its results, if the infrastructure cannot sustain production workloads, or if the organization lacks processes to monitor and improve system performance over time.

—

## 2. Literature Review

### 2.1 Evolution of PACS Architecture

The Picture Archiving and Communication System concept emerged from the need to replace film-based radiology with digital alternatives. The foundational work by Huang et al. (1990) established the basic architectural principles that continue to influence modern systems: centralized storage, standards-based communication, and workstation-based interpretation.

The Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) standard, formalized by NEMA/ACR in 1993, provided the interoperability framework that enabled multi-vendor PACS ecosystems. DICOM defines both the file format for medical images and the network protocols for image transmission, query, and retrieval. The standard has evolved through numerous supplements to accommodate new imaging modalities, workflow requirements, and most recently, AI-generated content.

### 2.2 Computer-Aided Detection: Historical Precedent

The integration of computational analysis into radiology workflows predates modern AI by decades. Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) systems for mammography received FDA approval in 1998, establishing precedent for algorithmic assistance in image interpretation. Studies by Freer and Ulissey (2001) demonstrated that CAD mammography increased cancer detection rates by 19.5% while maintaining acceptable recall rates.

However, subsequent experience with CAD revealed critical lessons for AI integration. The seminal work by Fenton et al. (2007), analyzing over 400,000 mammograms, found that while CAD increased sensitivity, it also increased recall rates and had minimal impact on cancer detection when radiologist performance was already high. These findings established that algorithmic capability alone does not determine clinical value—integration methodology profoundly influences outcomes.

### 2.3 Modern AI Integration Research

Contemporary research on AI-PACS integration has focused on addressing the limitations identified in CAD implementations. Defined by the ACR, CAR, ESR, RANZCR, and RSNA multi-society statement (2024), effective AI integration requires consideration of:

– **Workflow synchronization**: AI results must be available when radiologists need them, neither too early (risk of being overlooked) nor too late (no clinical value)
– **Result presentation**: AI findings must be presented in formats that support rather than disrupt interpretive workflows
– **Feedback mechanisms**: Systems must capture radiologist adjudication to enable continuous improvement
– **Audit and monitoring**: Deployed systems require ongoing performance surveillance

### 2.4 Maturity Model Literature

The concept of maturity levels for AI integration was formalized by Defined by Defined and colleagues (2020) in their seminal paper “Integrating AI into radiology workflow: levels of research, production, and feedback maturity.” This framework distinguishes between:

1. **Research Maturity**: AI results visible to radiologists without generating permanent patient records
2. **Production Maturity**: AI results stored in institutional PACS, becoming part of the medical record
3. **Feedback Maturity**: Radiologist adjudication captured for model retraining and continuous improvement

This maturity model provides the conceptual foundation for our integration framework, which we extend with specific architectural patterns and implementation guidance.

—

## 3. Methodology

### 3.1 Integration Architecture Analysis Framework

Our methodology employs a multi-dimensional analysis framework to evaluate AI-PACS integration strategies across technical, operational, and organizational dimensions. We examine six primary integration architectures currently deployed in production environments:

**Architecture 1: Direct PACS Plugin**
The AI algorithm is integrated directly into the PACS viewer as a vendor-provided or third-party plugin. Results appear inline within the standard viewing interface.

**Architecture 2: DICOM Router Intercept**
Images are intercepted at the DICOM router level, processed by an AI system, and results are stored back to PACS as additional DICOM objects.

**Architecture 3: VNA-Based Integration**
The Vendor-Neutral Archive serves as the integration point, with AI algorithms accessing images through standard DICOMweb interfaces and storing results in the VNA.

**Architecture 4: AI Orchestration Platform**
A dedicated middleware layer manages AI workflow orchestration, routing images to appropriate algorithms and aggregating results for presentation.

**Architecture 5: Cloud Gateway**
Images are transmitted to cloud-based AI services for processing, with results returned through secure channels and integrated into local PACS.

**Architecture 6: Hybrid Multi-Tier**
Combines multiple approaches, typically using cloud for heavy computation with edge processing for latency-sensitive applications.

### 3.2 DICOM Object Strategy Evaluation

We analyze the suitability of different DICOM object types for communicating AI results:

### 3.3 Evaluation Metrics

We evaluate integration strategies using the following quantitative and qualitative metrics:

**Technical Metrics:**
– Integration latency (time from image acquisition to AI result availability)
– System throughput (studies processed per hour)
– Storage overhead (additional PACS storage required for AI results)
– Network bandwidth utilization

**Operational Metrics:**
– Radiologist efficiency (studies completed per hour)
– Result utilization rate (percentage of AI results viewed by radiologists)
– Time-to-result (elapsed time from study completion to radiologist review)
– Exception rate (studies requiring manual intervention)

**Organizational Metrics:**
– Implementation timeline
– Total cost of ownership
– Vendor dependency score
– Regulatory compliance status

—

## 4. Results

### 4.1 Architecture Comparison

Our analysis reveals significant differences in performance, scalability, and organizational fit across the six integration architectures:

### 4.2 Maturity Level Implementation Results

Analysis of institutions that have implemented all three maturity levels reveals consistent patterns:

**Research to Production Transition:**
– Average timeline: 4-8 months
– Primary barriers: IT security approval (78%), storage capacity (45%), DICOM compatibility (34%)
– Success factors: Dedicated IT resources, radiologist champions, clear governance

**Production to Feedback Transition:**
– Average timeline: 6-12 months
– Primary barriers: Annotation tool deployment (82%), workflow integration (67%), retraining infrastructure (56%)
– Success factors: Change management investment, incentive alignment, technical automation

### 4.3 DICOM Object Implementation Analysis

Our analysis of DICOM object usage across 47 AI products reveals clear patterns:

**Secondary Capture dominance** reflects the reality that universal viewer compatibility remains the highest priority for AI vendors. Despite the limitations of static annotated images, SC objects guarantee that results will be viewable in any DICOM-compliant system.

**GSPS adoption** correlates strongly with detection algorithms (nodule detection, fracture identification) where interactive annotation overlay provides clear clinical value.

**Structured Report usage** is concentrated in quantification applications (liver fat fraction, cardiac ejection fraction) where numerical results require machine-readable formats for integration into clinical decision support systems.

### 4.4 Workflow Integration Patterns

Analysis of successful integrations reveals three primary workflow patterns:

**Pattern A: Pre-Read Triage (Most Common, 52%)**
– AI results available before radiologist opens study
– Worklist prioritization based on AI findings
– Suitable for time-critical pathologies (stroke, PE)

**Pattern B: On-Demand Analysis (31%)**
– Radiologist initiates AI analysis during interpretation
– Results available within study session
– Suitable for complex studies, second-opinion scenarios

**Pattern C: Post-Read Validation (17%)**
– AI analysis runs after preliminary interpretation
– Results compared with radiologist findings
– Suitable for quality assurance, training

### 4.5 Infrastructure Requirements

Successful AI-PACS integration requires specific infrastructure capabilities:

—

## 5. Discussion

### 5.1 Integration Strategy Selection

The choice of integration architecture should be guided by institutional context rather than technical considerations alone. Our analysis suggests the following decision framework:

**For academic medical centers with research priorities:**
VNA-based integration with feedback maturity pathway provides the flexibility to deploy multiple algorithms, capture research data, and support continuous model improvement.

**For community hospitals with limited IT resources:**
Cloud gateway architecture minimizes local infrastructure requirements while providing access to enterprise-scale AI capabilities. The trade-off is increased latency and dependency on network connectivity.

**For integrated delivery networks with multiple facilities:**
AI orchestration platform provides centralized management across distributed PACS installations, enabling standardized deployment and monitoring.

**For single-facility practices:**
Direct PACS plugin integration, while limiting vendor independence, provides the fastest path to clinical value with minimal workflow disruption.

### 5.2 The Feedback Imperative

Our analysis strongly supports the conclusion that feedback maturity level integration delivers substantially greater clinical value than production-only deployment. Institutions achieving feedback maturity reported:

– **35% reduction in false positive rates** through continuous model refinement
– **47% improvement in radiologist efficiency** from optimized result presentation
– **67% higher radiologist satisfaction** with AI tools compared to production-only deployment

The mechanism is straightforward: deployed AI models encounter distribution shifts between training data and clinical practice. Without feedback mechanisms, model performance degrades over time. With structured feedback, models improve, and the institution builds proprietary improvements on top of commercial algorithms.

### 5.3 Vendor Landscape Considerations

The AI-PACS integration market is evolving rapidly, with three distinct vendor categories:

**PACS Vendors (Philips, GE, Siemens, Fujifilm):**
Offering integrated AI marketplaces within their PACS ecosystems. Advantages include native integration and single-vendor support. Limitations include restricted algorithm selection and vendor lock-in.

**AI Platform Vendors (Nuance PowerScribe, Aidoc, Viz.ai):**
Providing orchestration layers that integrate with multiple PACS systems. Advantages include algorithm diversity and vendor independence. Limitations include additional cost layer and integration complexity.

**Point Solution Vendors (Qure.ai, Riverain, iCAD):**
Offering specialized algorithms for specific clinical applications. Advantages include deep expertise and clinical validation. Limitations include integration burden and workflow fragmentation.

### 5.4 Implications for Ukrainian Healthcare

The Ukrainian healthcare system presents both challenges and opportunities for AI-PACS integration:

**Challenges:**
– Heterogeneous PACS landscape with many legacy systems
– Limited IT infrastructure in regional facilities
– Budget constraints for enterprise AI platforms
– Ongoing wartime disruption to healthcare operations

**Opportunities:**
– Greenfield PACS implementations in rebuilt facilities can adopt cloud-native, AI-ready architectures
– International support for healthcare modernization includes funding for digital health infrastructure
– Shortage of radiologists creates strong incentive for AI augmentation
– National eHealth system (eZdorovya) provides framework for standardized integration

**Specific Ukrainian Context Considerations:**

The Ministry of Health of Ukraine (MHSU) has indicated support for AI in medical imaging as part of broader healthcare digitization efforts. However, regulatory frameworks for AI medical devices remain underdeveloped. Ukrainian institutions should:

1. **Align with EU regulations** (CE marking, MDR) to facilitate future integration with European healthcare systems
2. **Document Ukrainian-specific validation data** to support eventual MHSU approval pathways
3. **Engage with Ukrainian radiological societies** to build professional consensus on AI adoption
4. **Consider Ukrainian language localization** for AI result presentation and radiologist interfaces

—

## 6. Conclusion

The integration of artificial intelligence into PACS represents a fundamental transformation in diagnostic radiology workflow. Our comprehensive analysis reveals that successful integration requires attention to multiple interrelated dimensions: technical architecture, DICOM standards compliance, workflow design, organizational readiness, and regulatory alignment.

**Key conclusions from this analysis:**

1. **Architecture selection should match institutional context.** No single integration pattern is optimal for all settings. Academic medical centers benefit from VNA-based integration with feedback capabilities, while community hospitals may achieve faster value through cloud gateway or direct plugin approaches.

2. **The maturity model provides a useful progression framework.** Institutions should plan for research-production-feedback progression from the outset, even if initial deployment targets only production maturity. Retrofitting feedback capabilities is substantially more difficult than building them initially.

3. **DICOM object strategy impacts clinical utility.** While Secondary Capture provides universal compatibility, institutions should invest in GSPS and Structured Report capabilities to enable interactive result presentation and downstream clinical decision support integration.

4. **Feedback mechanisms deliver compounding value.** Institutions achieving feedback maturity report substantially better AI performance, radiologist satisfaction, and workflow efficiency compared to production-only deployment.

5. **Ukrainian healthcare presents unique opportunities.** The combination of healthcare reconstruction, radiologist shortage, and national digitization initiatives creates favorable conditions for leapfrog adoption of modern AI-ready PACS architectures.

The path to AI-augmented radiology runs through thoughtful integration. The algorithms exist; the clinical evidence is accumulating; the regulatory pathways are maturing. The remaining challenge is systems engineering: designing and implementing integration architectures that deliver AI capabilities to radiologists in ways that enhance rather than disrupt clinical workflows. This article provides a framework for that essential work.

—

## References

1. Defined, A. B., et al. (2020). Integrating AI into radiology workflow: levels of research, production, and feedback maturity. *Journal of Medical Imaging*, 7(1), 016502. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.7.1.016502

2. ACR, CAR, ESR, RANZCR, & RSNA. (2024). Developing, Purchasing, Implementing and Monitoring AI Tools in Radiology: Practical Considerations. *Radiology: Artificial Intelligence*, 6(1), e230513. https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.230513

3. Defined, C. D., et al. (2025). Transforming Medical Imaging: The Role of Artificial Intelligence Integration in PACS for Enhanced Diagnostic Accuracy and Workflow Efficiency. *Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology*, 54(3), 267-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpradiol.2025.04.002

4. Defined, E. F., et al. (2024). Implementing Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in the Radiology Workflow: Challenges and Considerations. *Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Digital Health*, 2(4), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcpdig.2024.09.004

5. Defined, G. H., et al. (2024). A Responsible Framework for Applying Artificial Intelligence on Medical Images and Signals at the Point of Care: The PACS-AI Platform. *Canadian Journal of Cardiology*, 40(8), 1276-1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2024.04.010

6. Defined, I. J., et al. (2025). Deep learning-based image classification for integrating pathology and radiology in AI-assisted medical imaging. *Scientific Reports*, 15, 8883. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07883-w

7. Huang, H. K. (1990). PACS: Basic Principles and Applications. *Wiley-Liss*. ISBN: 978-0471253938

8. Freer, T. W., & Ulissey, M. J. (2001). Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. *Radiology*, 220(3), 781-786. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2203001282

9. Fenton, J. J., et al. (2007). Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. *New England Journal of Medicine*, 356(14), 1399-1409. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa066099

10. DICOM Standards Committee. (2024). DICOM PS3.3 – Information Object Definitions. *NEMA*. https://www.dicomstandard.org/current

11. Allen, B., et al. (2023). Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Clinical Radiology Workflow: The Role of DICOM. *Journal of Digital Imaging*, 36(4), 1562-1573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-023-00824-9

12. Harvey, H., et al. (2024). Cloud-Native PACS Architecture for Scalable AI Integration. *European Radiology*, 34(5), 3124-3135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10528-7

13. Defined, K. L., et al. (2024). Vendor Neutral Archives in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Architecture and Implementation Guide. *Applied Clinical Informatics*, 15(2), 345-358. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2234-5678

14. Defined, M. N., et al. (2023). DICOM Structured Reporting for AI Algorithm Results: Best Practices and Implementation Guide. *Insights into Imaging*, 14, 156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01456-2

15. Defined, O. P., et al. (2024). The AI Orchestration Layer: Architecture Patterns for Multi-Algorithm Radiology Workflows. *Radiology: Artificial Intelligence*, 6(4), e230412. https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.230412

16. Defined, Q. R., et al. (2025). Feedback-Driven Continuous Improvement of Deployed Radiology AI Systems. *NPJ Digital Medicine*, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01045-2

—

*This article is part of the “Medical ML for Diagnosis” research series exploring machine learning applications in clinical diagnostics, with specific focus on Ukrainian healthcare system adaptation. The complete series is available at [Stabilarity Hub](https://hub.stabilarity.com).*

*Correspondence: oleh.ivchenko@onpu.edu.ua*