ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020
Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Care: Content Analysis of Social Media.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
76 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 216 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Concerns Regarding Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis Based on Social Ecological Theory.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Using Theory-Based Frameworks to Identify Barriers, Facilitators, Expectations, and Willingness to Pay for Online Medical Consultation Services in China: Qualitative Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Patients' Perspectives on Applications of AI and Personalized Medicine in Life-Threatening Heart Disease: European Cross-Sectional Patient Questionnaire Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Evaluation of parents' attitudes and perceptions regarding the use of artificial intelligence in dental practice: a cross-sectional survey.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Organizational Readiness, Perceived Usefulness, and Determinants of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Romanian Medical Management and Pharmaceutical Marketing.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploring Students' Perceptions and Usage of Artificial Intelligence in Supporting Mental Health: A Preliminary Study in Higher Education in Qatar.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Global Sentiment Toward Health AI at the Dawn of the ChatGPT Era: Empirical Analysis of Twitter (X) Discourse.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Patient Preferences for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Attitudes Towards the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Conjoint Analysis Survey in Singapore.Asian bioethics review · 2026Article
- Assessing public interest in artificial intelligence in dermatology: A Google Trends analysis.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2026Article
- Patient Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedic Surgery: Identifying Potential Barriers to Acceptance and Disparities With Implementation.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Article
- Facilitators and Barriers of Using an Artificial Intelligence Agent in Chronic Disease Management: A Normalization Process Theory-Guided Qualitative Study of Older Patients with COPD.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Parents' Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence-Supported Pediatric Healthcare Services: A Descriptive and Correlational Study.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the Social Perception of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare Scale in the Turkish Context: Evidence From Hatay Province.International journal of public health · 2026Article
- Public perceptions of AI in healthcare: a large-scale BERTopic and sentiment analysis of Reddit discussions.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Global English-language-dominated discourse on artificial intelligence in healthcare: a three-year longitudinal analysis of the #AIinHealthcare movement on X.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- What are the perceptions and concerns of people living with diabetes and National Health Service staff around the potential implementation of AI-assisted screening for diabetic eye disease?Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in acne vulgaris patients.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Public awareness, trust, perceived usefulness, and willingness to use ChatGPT for healthcare communication among adults in the Asir Region, Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-quality medical resources are in high demand worldwide, and the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical care may help alleviate the crisis related to this shortage. The development of the medical AI industry depends to a certain extent on whether industry experts have a comprehensive understanding of the public's views on medical AI. Currently, the opinions of the general public on this matter remain unclear.
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to explore the public perception of AI in medical care through a content analysis of social media data, including specific topics that the public is concerned about; public attitudes toward AI in medical care and the reasons for them; and public opinion on whether AI can replace human doctors.
methodsThrough an application programming interface, we collected a data set from the Sina Weibo platform comprising more than 16 million users throughout China by crawling all public posts from January to December 2017. Based on this data set, we identified 2315 posts related to AI in medical care and classified them through content analysis.
resultsAmong the 2315 identified posts, we found three types of AI topics discussed on the platform: (1) technology and application (n=987, 42.63%), (2) industry development (n=706, 30.50%), and (3) impact on society (n=622, 26.87%). Out of 956 posts where public attitudes were expressed, 59.4% (n=568), 34.4% (n=329), and 6.2% (n=59) of the posts expressed positive, neutral, and negative attitudes, respectively. The immaturity of AI technology (27/59, 46%) and a distrust of related companies (n=15, 25%) were the two main reasons for the negative attitudes. Across 200 posts that mentioned public attitudes toward replacing human doctors with AI, 47.5% (n=95) and 32.5% (n=65) of the posts expressed that AI would completely or partially replace human doctors, respectively. In comparison, 20.0% (n=40) of the posts expressed that AI would not replace human doctors.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that people are most concerned about AI technology and applications. Generally, the majority of people held positive attitudes and believed that AI doctors would completely or partially replace human ones. Compared with previous studies on medical doctors, the general public has a more positive attitude toward medical AI. Lack of trust in AI and the absence of the humanistic care factor are essential reasons why some people still have a negative attitude toward medical AI. We suggest that practitioners may need to pay more attention to promoting the credibility of technology companies and meeting patients' emotional needs instead of focusing merely on technical issues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.