ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Turkish medical oncologists' perspectives on integrating artificial intelligence: knowledge, attitudes, and ethical considerations.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots by Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients: A Descriptive Phenomenological Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence applications in knee osteoarthritis research: A bibliometric and visualized analysis.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntegrating artificial intelligence (AI), especially large language models (LLM) into oncology has potential benefits, yet medical oncologists' knowledge, attitudes, and ethical concerns remain unclear. Understanding these perspectives is particularly relevant in Türkiye, which has approximately 1340 practicing oncologists.
methodsA cross-sectional, online survey was distributed via the Turkish Society of Medical Oncology's channels from October 16 to November 27, 2024. Data on demographics, AI usage, self-assessed knowledge, attitudes, ethical/regulatory perceptions, and educational needs were collected. Quantitative analyses were performed using descriptive statistics and graphics were generated using R v.4.3.1, and qualitative analysis of open-ended responses was conducted manually.
resultsOf 147 respondents (representing about 11% of Turkish oncologists), 77.5% reported prior AI use, mainly LLMs, yet only 9.5% had formal AI education. While most supported integrating AI into prognosis estimation, research, and decision support, concerns persisted regarding patient-physician relationships and social perception. Ethical reservations centered on patient management, scholarly writing, and research design. Over 79% deemed current regulations inadequate and advocated ethical audits, legal frameworks, and patient consent. Nearly all were willing to receive AI training, reflecting a substantial educational gap.
conclusionsTurkish medical oncologists exhibit cautious optimism toward AI but highlight critical gaps in training, clear regulations, and ethical safeguards. Addressing these needs could guide responsible AI integration. Limitations include a single-country perspective. Further research is warranted to generalize findings and assess evolving attitudes as AI advances.
trial registrationNot applicable due to cross-sectional survey design.
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.