Dear AuntMinnie Member,
It's no secret that medical imaging procedure volume has taken a hit as hospitals postpone nonemergency studies to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. A new report illustrates just how seriously radiology has been slammed.
Imaging volumes are down over 50% at practices around the U.S., according to data released on April 23 by market research firm Quinsite. As crazy as it sounds, that may actually represent an improvement -- the firm found imaging volume down 60% in an update 10 days before.
The figures indicate that we're starting to get quantitative data on the impact that COVID-19 is having, both on imaging providers and vendors. First-quarter earnings season is starting, and most companies are beginning to report that COVID-19 is taking a bite out of revenues. The big hit will come in the second quarter, however, as purchasing activity ground to a halt in April.
But the COVID-19 pandemic isn't going to last forever. Some key opinion leaders are even beginning to raise the possibility that a surge of patients needing imaging exams could occur as the outbreak winds down. But is radiology ready?
Other recent developments on the COVID-19 front include a notice from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that it would be lifting some of its regulatory oversight for modifications made to imaging equipment in light of the pandemic. The announcement came as many imaging facilities are finding creative ways to image patients with suspected COVID-19 while minimizing infection risk.
Meanwhile, clinicians issued a warning about using CT to diagnose COVID-19, while a group from Italy found that performing quantitative measurements of the well-aerated lung on baseline CT scans can predict prognosis in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
Finally, there will be several presentations on COVID-19 in our 2020 Virtual Conference, being held on April 30 and May 1. Have you registered yet? Join over 4,000 radiology professionals who have at auntminnie.vfairs.com.
![Representative example of a 16-year-old male patient with underlying X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy. (A, B) Paired anteroposterior (AP) chest radiograph and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) report shows lumbar spine (L1 through L4) areal bone mineral density (BMD). The DXA report was reformatted for anonymization and improved readability. The patient had low BMD (Z score ≤ −2.0). (C) Model (chest radiography [CXR]–BMD) output shows the predicted raw BMD and Z score in comparison with the DXA reference standard, together with interpretability analyses using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) and gradient-weighted class activation maps. The patient was classified as having low BMD, consistent with the reference standard. AM = age-matched, DEXA = dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, RM2 = room 2, SNUH = Seoul National University Hospital, YA = young adult.](https://img.auntminnie.com/mindful/smg/workspaces/default/uploads/2026/04/ai-children-bone-density.0snnf2EJjr.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=crop&h=100&q=70&w=100)
![Representative example of a 16-year-old male patient with underlying X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy. (A, B) Paired anteroposterior (AP) chest radiograph and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) report shows lumbar spine (L1 through L4) areal bone mineral density (BMD). The DXA report was reformatted for anonymization and improved readability. The patient had low BMD (Z score ≤ −2.0). (C) Model (chest radiography [CXR]–BMD) output shows the predicted raw BMD and Z score in comparison with the DXA reference standard, together with interpretability analyses using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) and gradient-weighted class activation maps. The patient was classified as having low BMD, consistent with the reference standard. AM = age-matched, DEXA = dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, RM2 = room 2, SNUH = Seoul National University Hospital, YA = young adult.](https://img.auntminnie.com/mindful/smg/workspaces/default/uploads/2026/04/ai-children-bone-density.0snnf2EJjr.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&dpr=2&fit=crop&h=167&q=70&w=250)
