Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38535503›Full record

ArticleJMIRx med2024

Medical Expectations of Physicians on AI Solutions in Daily Practice: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Mara Giavina-Bianchi, Edson Amaro, Birajara Soares Machado

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIRx med, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Consensus statement on the application of artificial intelligence in osteoporosis screening and management: perspectives from the Asia-Pacific region.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

3 authors.

Mara Giavina-BianchiBig Data Department, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7059-4068
Edson AmaroBig Data Department, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5889-1382
Birajara Soares MachadoBig Data Department, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7119-4170

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine has been a trending subject in the past few years. Although not frequently used in daily practice yet, it brings along many expectations, doubts, and fears for physicians. Surveys can be used to help understand this situation. Objective: This study aimed to explore the degree of knowledge, expectations, and fears on possible AI use by physicians in daily practice, according to sex and time since graduation. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to physicians of a large hospital in Brazil, from August to September 2022. Results: A total of 164 physicians responded to our survey. Overall, 54.3% (89/164) of physicians considered themselves to have an intermediate knowledge of AI, and 78.5% (128/163) believed that AI should be regulated by a governmental agency. If AI solutions were reliable, fast, and available, 77.9% (127/163) intended to frequently or always use AI for diagnosis (143/164, 87.2%), management (140/164, 85.4%), or exams interpretation (150/164, 91.5%), but their approvals for AI when used by other health professionals (85/163, 52.1%) or directly by patients (82/162, 50.6%) were not as high. The main benefit would be increasing the speed for diagnosis and management (106/163, 61.3%), and the worst issue would be to over rely on AI and lose medical skills (118/163, 72.4%). Physicians believed that AI would be useful (106/163, 65%), facilitate their work (140/153, 91.5%), not alter the number of appointments (80/162, 49.4%), not interfere in their financial gain (94/162, 58%), and not replace their jobs but be an additional source of information (104/162, 64.2%). In case of disagreement between AI and physicians, most (108/159, 67.9%) answered that a third opinion should be requested. Physicians with ≤10 years since graduation would adopt AI solutions more frequently than those with >20 years since graduation (P=.04), and female physicians were more receptive to other hospital staff using AI than male physicians (P=.008). Conclusions: Physicians were shown to have good expectations regarding the use of AI in medicine when they apply it themselves, but not when used by others. They also intend to use it, as long as it was approved by a regulatory agency. Although there was hope for a beneficial impact of AI on health care, it also brings specific concerns.

Indexed as

acceptanceadoptionAIartificial intelligenceexpectationsmedical surveyopinionperceptionsphysicianqualitative studysurvey

Identifiers

PMID38535503
PMCPMC11080601

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.