ArticlePloS one2023
Expectations and attitudes towards medical artificial intelligence: A qualitative study in the field of stroke.
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.
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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- "First, do no harm" in the digital era: examining the practicality of the European Health Data Space proposal and ethical implications of artificial intelligence: A systematic literature review.BMC medical ethics · 2026Pooled it
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Trust in Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems Among Health Care Workers: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Physicians' required competencies in AI-assisted clinical settings: a systematic review.British medical bulletin · 2025Pooled it
- Healthcare professionals' perceptions and needs for a Home-based Artificial Intelligence Pain Management System for cancer pain: A qualitative study.International journal of nursing sciences · 2026Article
- Physicians' perspectives on artificial intelligence in electrocardiography in clinical practice: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Assessing multiple chatGPT versions on novel content in the Taiwan urology board examination: accuracy, speed, and domain-specific performance.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Exploring Attitudes Toward AI-Based Contactless Sensors in Health Among Five Stakeholder Groups: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Performance of predictive AI-based clinical decision support systems across clinical domains: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- "Black box" artificial intelligence for mortality prediction: a mixed-methods study of palliative care team, patient, and caregiver perspectives.Annals of palliative medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Shaping the Doctor-Patient Relationship: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Public perceptions of AI in healthcare: a large-scale BERTopic and sentiment analysis of Reddit discussions.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Is accuracy enough? trust and barriers to AI-based clinical decision support in clinical neurophysiology.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Article
- Perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence in Japan: a focus group interview study of healthcare providers.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Barriers and enablers for generative artificial intelligence in clinical psychology: a qualitative study based on the COM-B and theoretical domains framework (TDF) models.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Sociotechnical influences on the adoption and use of AI-enabled clinical decision support systems in ophthalmology: a theory-based interview study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Public trust of AI in healthcare in South Africa: results of a survey.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Evaluating accountability, transparency, and bias in AI-assisted healthcare decision- making: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' perspectives in the UK.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review of User Attitudes Toward GenAI: Influencing Factors and Industry Perspectives.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.