ArticleDigital health
Patient perspectives on informed consent for medical AI: A web-based experiment.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Artificial Intelligence and the Ethical Foundations of Cardiothoracic Surgery: Evidence, Accountability, and the Limits of Delegated Judgment.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Ethical readiness and trust in artificial intelligence-assisted anaesthesia: A cross-sectional survey study among anaesthesia professionals in India.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Prehospital Tele-Emergency Medicine: A Survey of Acceptance and Attitudes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- AI-Augmented Teach-Back in Dentistry: From Patient Education to Verified Clinical Understanding.Cureus · 2026Review
- Informed Consent Disclosures and Minimum Requirements in AI Clinical Trials: Cross-Sectional Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Guiding Policymakers Toward Better AI Ethics Integration in Healthcare Regulation-Lessons from Singapore.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Patients and donors trust in data authorization for AI-based medical research.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence reshaping the paradigm of hematologic malignancy diagnosis and treatment: From static assessment to dynamic precision management.Annals of hematology · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence for precision oncology from phenotyping and drug discovery to clinical translation.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- AI-driven nanomedicine for cancer theranostics.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in psychiatry: clinical applications, limitations, and ethical challenges.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Clinician and simulated patient perspectives on ambient AI scribes in psychiatric consultations: a qualitative study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Me, my doctor and AI: a qualitative interview study on patients' requirements for trustworthy use of AI-CDSS in ophthalmology.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- Legal implications of AI standard of care integration on patients' informed consent: lessons from surgery.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Ethical Challenges and Implications of Telemedicine Implementation in Saudi Primary Healthcare: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Challenges and Solutions in Applying Large Language Models to Guideline-Based Management Planning and Automated Medical Coding in Health Care: Algorithm Development and Validation.JMIR biomedical engineering · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Despite the increasing use of AI applications as a clinical decision support tool in healthcare, patients are often unaware of their use in the physician's decision-making process. This study aims to determine whether doctors should disclose the use of AI tools in diagnosis and what kind of information should be provided. Methods: A survey experiment with 1000 respondents in South Korea was conducted to estimate the patients' perceived importance of information regarding the use of an AI tool in diagnosis in deciding whether to receive the treatment. Results: The study found that the use of an AI tool increases the perceived importance of information related to its use, compared with when a physician consults with a human radiologist. Information regarding the AI tool when AI is used was perceived by participants either as more important than or similar to the regularly disclosed information regarding short-term effects when AI is not used. Further analysis revealed that gender, age, and income have a statistically significant effect on the perceived importance of every piece of AI information. Conclusions: This study supports the disclosure of AI use in diagnosis during the informed consent process. However, the disclosure should be tailored to the individual patient's needs, as patient preferences for information regarding AI use vary across gender, age and income levels. It is recommended that ethical guidelines be developed for informed consent when using AI in diagnoses that go beyond mere legal requirements.
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.