Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36630325›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Expectations and attitudes towards medical artificial intelligence: A qualitative study in the field of stroke.

Julia Amann, Effy Vayena, Kelly E Ormond, Dietmar Frey, Vince I Madai, Alessandro Blasimme

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Facilitators and Barriers of the Use of Prognostic Models for Clinical Decision Making in Acute Neurologic Care: A Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Julia AmannHealth Ethics and Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2155-5286
Effy VayenaHealth Ethics and Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Kelly E OrmondHealth Ethics and Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1033-0818
Dietmar FreyCLAIM-Charité Lab for AI in Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Vince I MadaiCLAIM-Charité Lab for AI in Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Alessandro BlasimmeHealth Ethics and Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-5908-2002

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionArtificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform clinical decision-making as we know it. Powered by sophisticated machine learning algorithms, clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can generate unprecedented amounts of predictive information about individuals' health. Yet, despite the potential of these systems to promote proactive decision-making and improve health outcomes, their utility and impact remain poorly understood due to their still rare application in clinical practice. Taking the example of AI-powered CDSS in stroke medicine as a case in point, this paper provides a nuanced account of stroke survivors', family members', and healthcare professionals' expectations and attitudes towards medical AI.

methodsWe followed a qualitative research design informed by the sociology of expectations, which recognizes the generative role of individuals' expectations in shaping scientific and technological change. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with stroke survivors, family members, and healthcare professionals specialized in stroke based in Germany and Switzerland. Data was analyzed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis.

resultsBased on the participants' deliberations, we identified four presumed roles that medical AI could play in stroke medicine, including an administrative, assistive, advisory, and autonomous role AI. While most participants held positive attitudes towards medical AI and its potential to increase accuracy, speed, and efficiency in medical decision making, they also cautioned that it is not a stand-alone solution and may even lead to new problems. Participants particularly emphasized the importance of relational aspects and raised questions regarding the impact of AI on roles and responsibilities and patients' rights to information and decision-making. These findings shed light on the potential impact of medical AI on professional identities, role perceptions, and the doctor-patient relationship.

conclusionOur findings highlight the need for a more differentiated approach to identifying and tackling pertinent ethical and legal issues in the context of medical AI. We advocate for stakeholder and public involvement in the development of AI and AI governance to ensure that medical AI offers solutions to the most pressing challenges patients and clinicians face in clinical care.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePhysician-Patient RelationsAlgorithmsHumansMotivationQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID36630325
PMCPMC9833517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.