ArticleBMC health services research2024
Exploring clinical specialists' perspectives on the future role of AI: evaluating replacement perceptions, benefits, and drawbacks.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Prehospital Tele-Emergency Medicine: A Survey of Acceptance and Attitudes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Utility of Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology Training and Practice: A National, Cross-Sectional Study.The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2026Article
- Toward Explainable Precision Nephrology: Machine Learning-Based Chronic Kidney Disease Prediction.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Experiences and Perceptions of Clinical and Graduate Medical Students Regarding AI in Syria: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Examining developer perspectives on medical AI regulatory frameworks.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in surgical care within low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review of development, validation, and deployment.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Understanding psychiatrist readiness for AI: a study of access, self-efficacy, trust, and design expectations.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Bridging the AI-Literacy Gap in Health Care: Qualitative Analysis of the Flanders Case Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology: Acceptance, Clinical Integration, and Educational Needs in Switzerland.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Attitudes, Perceptions, and Factors Influencing the Adoption of AI in Health Care Among Medical Staff: Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Can AI match emergency physicians in managing common emergency cases? A comparative performance evaluation.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Promises and perils of generative artificial intelligence: a narrative review informing its ethical and practical applications in clinical exercise physiology.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Exploring the complex nature of implementation of Artificial intelligence in clinical practice: an interview study with healthcare professionals, researchers and Policy and Governance Experts.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Can AI Be Useful in the Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer in Patients with New-Onset Diabetes?Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Oncologic Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning Methods in CT Spine Imaging-A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background of studyOver the past few decades, the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has surged in popularity, and its application in the medical field is witnessing a global increase. Nevertheless, the implementation of AI-based healthcare solutions has been slow in developing nations like Pakistan. This unique study aims to assess the opinion of clinical specialists on the future replacement of AI, its associated benefits, and its drawbacks in form southern region of Pakistan. MATERIAL AND
methodsA cross-sectional selective study was conducted from 140 clinical specialists (Surgery = 24, Pathology = 31, Radiology = 35, Gynecology = 35, Pediatric = 17) from the neglected southern Punjab region of Pakistan. The study was analyzed using χ
resultsOut of 140 respondents, 34 (24.3%) believed hospitals were ready for AI, while 81 (57.9%) disagreed. Additionally, 42(30.0%) were concerned about privacy violations, and 70(50%) feared AI could lead to unemployment. Specialists with less than 6 years of experience are more likely to embrace AI (p = 0.0327, OR = 3.184, 95% C.I; 0.262, 3.556) and those who firmly believe that AI knowledge will not replace their future tasks exhibit a lower likelihood of accepting AI (p = 0.015, OR = 0.235, 95% C.I: (0.073, 0.758). Clinical specialists who perceive AI as a technology that encompasses both drawbacks and benefits demonstrated a higher likelihood of accepting its adoption (p = 0.084, OR = 2.969, 95% C.I; 0.865, 5.187).
conclusionClinical specialists have embraced AI as the future of the medical field while acknowledging concerns about privacy and unemployment.
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.