ArticleCureus2023
Artificial Intelligence and Patient Autonomy in Obesity Treatment Decisions: An Empirical Study of the Challenges.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stakeholder experience with artificial intelligence in healthcare: a bibliometric study of satisfaction, trust, acceptance, and patient engagement.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Ethical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence in Precision Medicine for Obesity Management.JMA journal · 2026Review
- Ethical and legal considerations in healthcare AI: innovation and policy for safe and fair use.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Exploring AI Approaches for Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis: A Review Article.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2025Review
- Federated multimodal AI for precision-equitable diabetes care.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence Challenges in the Healthcare Industry: A Systematic Review of Recent Evidence.Healthcare technology lettersReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This study aims to explore the factors associated with artificial intelligence (AI) and patient autonomy in obesity treatment decision-making. Methodology A cross-sectional, online, descriptive survey design was adopted in this study. The survey instrument incorporated the Ideal Patient Autonomy Scale (IPAS) and other factors affecting patient autonomy in the AI-patient relationship. The study participants included 74 physicians, 55 dieticians, and 273 obese patients. Results Different views were expressed in the scales AI knows the best (μ = 2.95-3.15) and the patient should decide (μ = 2.95-3.16). Ethical concerns (μ = 3.24) and perceived privacy risks (μ = 3.58) were identified as having a more negative influence on patient autonomy compared to personal innovativeness (μ = 2.41) and trust (μ = 2.85). Physicians and dieticians expressed significantly higher trust in AI compared to patients (p < 0.05). Conclusions Patient autonomy in the AI-patient relationship is significantly affected by privacy, trust, and ethical issues. As trust is a multifaceted factor and AI is a novel technology in healthcare, it is essential to fully explore the various factors influencing trust and patient autonomy.
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.