ArticlePloS one2024
Ethical attitudes and perspectives of AI use in medicine between Croatian and Slovenian faculty members of school of medicine: Cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence adoption in healthcare: a systematic review of implementation challenges and health services implications.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- The evolving literature on the ethics of artificial intelligence for healthcare: a PRISMA scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is present in preclinical, clinical and research work, in various branches of medicine. Researchers and teachers at school of medicines may have different ethical attitudes and perspectives about the implementation of AI systems in medicine.
methodsWe conducted an online survey among researchers and teachers (RTs) at the departments and institutes of two Slovenian and four Croatian Schools of Medicine.
resultsThe sample included 165 and 214 researchers and teachers in Slovenia and Croatia, respectively. The sample of respondents in Slovenia and Croatia was comparable in demographical characteristics. All participants reported high emphasis on the bioethical principles when using artificial intelligence in medicine, its usefulness in certain circumstances, but also caution regarding companies providing AI systems and tools. Slovenian and Croatian researchers and teachers shared three similar perspectives on the use of AI in medicine-complying with highest ethical principles, explainability and transparency and usefulness of AI tools. Higher caution towards use of AI in medicine and effect on autonomy of physicians was expressed in Croatia, while in Slovenia high emphasis was put on understanding how AI works, but also the concerns regarding willingness and time of physicians to learn about AI.
conclusionSlovenian and Croatian researchers and teachers share ethical attitudes and perspectives with international researchers and physicians. It is important to facilitate understanding of the implications of AI use in medicine and set a solid evidence-based ground to tackle ethical and legal issues.
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.