Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39050906›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2024

Empowering health care consumers & understanding patients' perspectives on AI integration in oncology and surgery: A perspective.

Wireko Andrew Awuah, Nicholas Aderinto, Jeisun Poornaselvan, Joecelyn Kirani Tan, Muhammad Hamza Shah, Patrick Ashinze, Anushka G Pujari, Hareesha Rishab Bharadwaj, Toufik Abdul-Rahman, Oday Atallah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Application of Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer Research.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
    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

10 authors.

Wireko Andrew AwuahFaculty of Medicine Sumy State University Sumy Ukraine.
Nicholas AderintoInternal Medicine Department LAUTECH Teaching Hospital Ogbomoso Nigeria.
Jeisun PoornaselvanSchool of Medicine University College Dublin Dublin Ireland.ORCID 0009-0009-8664-0183
Joecelyn Kirani TanFaculty of Medicine University of St Andrews St. Andrews Scotland UK.ORCID 0009-0005-3648-6553
Muhammad Hamza ShahSchool of Medicine Queen's University Belfast Belfast UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6782-730X
Patrick AshinzeFaculty of Clinical Sciences University of Ilorin Ilorin Nigeria.
Anushka G PujariRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland Dublin Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-8613-3239
Hareesha Rishab BharadwajFaculty of Biology, Medicineand Health The University of Manchester Manchester UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7979-2834
Toufik Abdul-RahmanFaculty of Medicine Sumy State University Sumy Ukraine.ORCID 0000-0003-0153-287X
Oday AtallahDepartment of Neurosurgery Hannover Medical School Hannover Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming oncology and surgery by improving diagnostics, personalizing treatments, and enhancing surgical precision. Patients appreciate AI for its potential to provide accurate prognoses and tailored therapies. However, AI's implementation raises ethical concerns, data privacy issues, and the need for transparent communication between patients and health care providers. This study aims to understand patients' perspectives on AI integration in oncology and surgery to foster a balanced and patient-centered approach. Methods: The study utilized a comprehensive literature review and analysis of existing research on AI applications in oncology and surgery. The focus was on examining patient perceptions, ethical considerations, and the potential benefits and risks associated with AI integration. Data was collected from peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, and expert opinions to provide a broad understanding of the topic. The perspectives of patients was also emphasized to highlight the nuances of their acceptance and concerns regarding AI in their health care. Results: Patients generally perceive AI in oncology and surgery as beneficial, appreciating its potential for more accurate diagnoses, personalized treatment plans, and improved surgical outcomes. They particularly value AI's role in providing timely and precise diagnostics, which can lead to better prognoses and reduced anxiety. However, concerns about data privacy, ethical implications, and the reliability of AI systems were prevalent. Consequently, trust in AI and health care providers was deemed as a crucial factor for patient acceptance. Additionally, the need for transparent communication and ethical safeguards was also highlighted to address these concerns effectively. Conclusion: The integration of AI in oncology and surgeryholds significant promise for enhancing patient care and outcomes. Patients view AI as a valuable tool that can provide accurate prognoses and personalized treatments. However, addressing ethical concerns, ensuring data privacy, and building trust through transparent communication are essential for successful AI integration. Future initiatives should focus on refining AI algorithms, establishing robust ethical guidelines, and enhancing patient education to harmonize technological advancements with patient-centered care principles.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceoncologypatients perspectivessurgery

Identifiers

PMID39050906
PMCPMC11266117

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.