ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Exploring doctors' perspectives on generative-AI and diagnostic-decision-support systems.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthcare Providers' Perspectives on the Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Care of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An International Survey.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Human-AI Interaction in Interventional Radiology: A Narrative Review of Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of imaging · 2026Review
- Performance Modeling of Lightweight Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models for Low-Resource Plastic Surgery Settings.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Acceptance of generative AI-assisted medical decision-making among Chinese physicians and patients and its ethical determinants: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Applicability in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Present Perspectives and Future Formations.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
- Allied health professional attitudes toward artificial intelligence in healthcare: A UK cross-sectional survey.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This research presents key findings from a project exploring UK doctors' perspectives on artificial intelligence (AI) in their work. Despite a growing interest in the use of AI in medicine, studies have yet to explore a representative sample of doctors' perspectives on, and experiences with, making use of different types of AI. Our research seeks to fill this gap by presenting findings from a survey exploring doctors' perceptions and experiences of using a variety of AI systems in their work. A sample of 929 doctors on the UK medical register participated in a survey between December 2023 and January 2024 which asked a range of questions about their understanding and use of AI systems.Overall, 29% of respondents reported using some form of AI in their practice within the last 12 months, with diagnostic-decision-support (16%) and generative-AI (16%) being the most prevalently used AI systems.We found that the majority of generative-AI users (62%) reported that these systems increase their productivity, and most diagnostic- decision-support users (62%) reported that the systems improve their clinical decision-making. More than half of doctors (52%) were optimistic about the integration of AI in healthcare, rising to 63% for AI users. Only 15% stated that advances in AI make them worried about their job security, with no significant difference between AI and non-AI users. However, there were relatively low reported levels of training, as well as understandings of risks and professional responsibilities, especially among generative-AI users. Just 12% of respondents agreed they have received sufficient training to understand their professional responsibilities when using AI, with this number decreasing to 8% for generative-AI users. We hope this work adds to the evidence base for policy-makers looking to support the integration of AI in healthcare.
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.