ArticleJAMIA open2025
Contrasting attitudes towards current and future artificial intelligence applications for computerised interpretation of electrocardiograms: a clinical stakeholder interview study.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in medicine: a scoping review of the risk of deskilling and loss of expertise among physicians.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Implementing computer‑aided detection for TB active case finding: A qualitative study of feasibility and acceptability in Tondo, Manila.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Article
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
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
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.