ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Physicians' ethical concerns about artificial intelligence in medicine: a qualitative study:
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Ethical concerns and strategies for implementing artificial intelligence in healthcare: a review of empirical studies.BMC medical ethics · 2026Pooled it
- Opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence in public health: a systematic review on technological efficacy, ethical dilemmas, and governance pathways.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in breast ultrasound: a systematic review of research advances.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT's Accuracy, Repeatability, and Reasoning Ability in Prosthodontics Education: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study with Prosthodontists.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: Hidden Fragilities and the Path to Resilience.Saudi medical journal · 2026Review
- Impact of Hospital Hierarchy on Nurses' Attitudes Toward Artificial Intelligence: Mediating Roles of Artificial Intelligence Literacy and Anxiety.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Implementing computer‑aided detection for TB active case finding: A qualitative study of feasibility and acceptability in Tondo, Manila.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and breast cancer screening in Serbia: a dual-perspective qualitative study among radiologists and screening-aged women.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Article
- From Slide to Insight: The Emerging Alliance of Digital Pathology and AI in Melanoma Diagnostics.Cancers · 2025Review
- Physicians' Attitudes Toward Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Mixed Methods Survey and Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Examining the relationship between midwives' attitudes toward artificial intelligence use and their job satisfaction.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Physicians' attitudes and acceptance towards artificial intelligence in medical care: a qualitative study in Germany.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Physician perceptions of artificial intelligence in Northern Italy healthcare: a survey of fears and expectations.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Cognitive alignment in cardiovascular AI: designing predictive models that think with, not just for, clinicians.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the capability of computational systems to perform tasks that require human-like cognitive functions, such as reasoning, learning, and decision-making. Unlike human intelligence, AI does not involve sentience or consciousness but focuses on data processing, pattern recognition, and prediction through algorithms and learned experiences. In healthcare including neuroscience, AI is valuable for improving prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and surveillance. Methods: This qualitative study aimed to investigate the acceptability of AI in Medicine (AIIM) and to elucidate any technical and scientific, as well as social and ethical issues involved. Twenty-five doctors from various specialties were carefully interviewed regarding their views, experience, knowledge, and attitude toward AI in healthcare. Results: Content analysis confirmed the key ethical principles involved: confidentiality, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Honesty was the least invoked principle. A thematic analysis established four salient topic areas, i.e., Conclusion: The authors conclude that AI should be rationally guided, function transparently, and produce impartial results. It should assist human healthcare professionals collaboratively. This kind of AI will permit fairer, more innovative healthcare which benefits patients and society whilst preserving human dignity. It can foster accuracy and precision in medical practice and reduce the workload by assisting physicians during clinical tasks. AIIM that functions transparently and respects the public interest can be an inspiring scientific innovation for humanity.
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.