I believe AIT should be discontinued for a period of one (1) year at a minimum, then re-assessed entirely from base principles.
The existing AIT solution is muddled in the public eye due to a combination of factors:
Long-term medical risks were not properly documented or disseminated during the initial rollout in a way according to any one of numerous well-respected scientific journals or standards. As a result the documentation that was provided became lost in a sea of doubt.
The rollout of two very dissimilar technologies under very similar packaging and terminology further confused the general public that attempted to be well-informed.
The numerous initial flaws in the roll-out regarding how images were presented versus later revisions, claims of storage abilities versus later admissions, etc, also damaged the reputability of the program.
The required alternative pat-downs had insufficient initial training (as evidenced by the numerous newsworthy reports of issues w/ the disabled or those wearing medical devices), further marring what could have otherwise been a very simple alternative and adding a feeling of being 'backed into a corner' to many that were uncomfortable with either.
No appreciable benefit has been shown to the more invasive scanning versus the simple change in policy of 'never submit' versus plane hijackings, and both reinforcing and locking the cockpit door versus the previous open-door policy.
The well documented bottlenecks the slow scanning AIT machines have versus the 'walking pace' and much lower cost metal detector arches cause traffic jams which in many airports are now larger gatherings than the planes themselves, and these traffic jams are OUTSIDE the scanner-secured area and thus more likely targets as a result.
As an alternative TO the pat-down for a failed metal-detector arch scan? That is where the AIT has the most promise I believe, by attempting to add dignity versus removing it.