ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey of paediatric surgery residents' perspectives.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence and chatbots in general surgery: a survey among surgeons in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Children and adolescents' views on artificial intelligence in pediatric healthcare: a qualitative focus group study.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Receptiveness of physicians towards artificial intelligence-driven drug prescription: a nationwide survey.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Education Research: Bridging the Artificial Intelligence Training Gap: Evidence from a National Survey of Italian Neurology Residents.Neurology. Education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the performances of residents and ChatGPT in answering validated questions and assess paediatric surgery residents' acceptance, perceptions and readiness to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical practice.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using randomly selected questions and clinical cases on paediatric surgery topics. We examined residents' acceptance of AI before and after comparing their results to ChatGPT's results using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) model. Data analysis was performed using Jamovi V.2.4.12.0.
results30 residents participated. ChatGPT-4.0's median score was 13.75, while ChatGPT-3.5's was 8.75. The median score among residents was 8.13. Differences appeared statistically significant. ChatGPT outperformed residents specifically in definition questions (ChatGPT-4.0 vs residents, p<0.0001; ChatGPT-3.5 vs residents, p=0.03). In the UTAUT2 Questionnaire, respondents expressed a more positive evaluation of ChatGPT with higher mean values for each construct and lower fear of technology after learning about test scores. DISCUSSION: ChatGPT performed better than residents in knowledge-based questions and simple clinical cases. The accuracy of ChatGPT declined when confronted with more complex questions. The UTAUT questionnaire results showed that learning about the potential of ChatGPT could lead to a shift in perception, resulting in a more positive attitude towards AI.
conclusionOur study reveals residents' positive receptivity towards AI, especially after being confronted with its efficacy. These results highlight the importance of integrating AI-related topics into medical curricula and residency to help future physicians and surgeons better understand the advantages and limitations of AI.
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.