ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2025
Patient Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging.
Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 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.
- Exploring attitudes and acceptance of artificial intelligence in multiple sclerosis from the patient perspective.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Patient Perspectives on AI-Drafted Electronic Portal Messages.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Ethical Responsibility in Medical AI: A Semi-Systematic Thematic Review and Multilevel Governance Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- AI health literacy as a foundation for responsible AI in healthcare: a framework for trustworthy implementation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Large Language Models in Radiologist-Patient Communication: A Narrative Review for Clinical Practice.Cureus · 2026Review
- Review
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
Unlabelled: Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping medical imaging with the promise of improved diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. Yet, its ethical and effective adoption depends not only on technical excellence but also on aligning implementation with patient perspectives. This commentary synthesizes emerging research on how patients perceive AI in radiology, expressing cautious optimism, a desire for transparency, and a strong preference for human oversight. Patients consistently view AI as a supportive tool rather than a replacement for clinicians. We argue that centering patient voices is essential to sustaining trust, preserving the human connection in care, and ensuring that AI serves as a truly patient-centered innovation. The path forward requires participatory approaches, ethical safeguards, and transparent communication to ensure that AI enhances, rather than diminishes, the values patients hold most dear.
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.