Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40692805›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2025

Contrasting attitudes towards current and future artificial intelligence applications for computerised interpretation of electrocardiograms: a clinical stakeholder interview study.

Lukas Hughes-Noehrer, Leda Channer, Gabriel Strain, Gregory Yates, Richard Body, Caroline Jay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Lukas Hughes-NoehrerDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9167-0397
Leda ChannerDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
Gabriel StrainDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
Gregory YatesManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WL, United Kingdom.
Richard BodyManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WL, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9089-8130
Caroline JayDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate clinicians' attitudes towards current automated interpretation of ECG and novel AI technologies and their perception of computer-assisted interpretation. Materials and Methods: We conducted a series of interviews with clinicians in the UK. Our study: (1) explores the potential for AI, specifically future "human-like" computing approaches, to facilitate ECG interpretation and support clinical decision making, and (2) elicits their opinions about the importance of explainability and trustworthiness of AI algorithms. Results: We performed inductive thematic analysis on interview transcriptions from 23 clinicians and identified the following themes: (1) a lack of trust in current systems, (2) positive attitudes towards future AI applications and requirements for these, (3) the relationship between the accuracy and explainability of algorithms, and (4) opinions on education, possible deskilling, and the impact of AI on clinical competencies. Discussion: Clinicians do not trust current computerised methods, but welcome future "AI" technologies. Where clinicians trust future AI interpretation to be accurate, they are less concerned that it is explainable. They also preferred ECG interpretation that demonstrated the results of the algorithm visually. Whilst clinicians do not fear job losses, they are concerned about deskilling and the need to educate the workforce to use AI responsibly. Conclusion: Clinicians are positive about the future application of AI in clinical decision-making. Accuracy is a key factor of uptake and visualisations are preferred over current computerised methods. This is viewed as a potential means of training and upskilling, in contrast to the deskilling that automation might be perceived to bring.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecomputerised interpretationelectrocardiogramqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID40692805
PMCPMC12278055

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.