ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Clinical experience and perception of risk affect the acceptance and trust of using AI in medicine.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Medical AI Use Intention Among Medical Students and Faculty and Its Associations With AI Literacy, Perceived Benefits, and Risks: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- When Do Physicians Trust AI? The Role of Clinical Context in Decision Support: SMART vignette study.Research square · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and ChatGPT literacy among surgical healthcare professionals: knowledge, attitudes, and perceived clinical utility.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- AI-supported clinical decision-making: in silico simulation of physician-AI interactions.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & aims: As Artificial Intelligence (AI) is progressively making inroads into clinical practice, questions have arisen as to whether acceptance of AI is skewed towards certain medical practitioner segments, even within particular specializations. This study aimed to examine distinct AI attitudes (including trust and acceptance) and intended behaviors among clinicians from contrasting backgrounds and levels of seniority/experience when interacting with AI. Methods: Based on the results we divided participants into four groups, those who have (i) low experience and low risk perception, (ii) low experience and high risk perception, (iii) high experience and low risk perception, and (iv) high experience and perceived risk of AI use to be high. An ANCOVA model was constructed to test whether the four groups differ regarding their overall acceptance of AI. Results: Data from 319 gastroenterologists show the presence of four distinct clusters of clinicians based upon experience levels and perceived risk typologies. Analysis of cluster-based responses further revealed that acceptance of AI was not uniform. Our findings showed that clinician experience and risk perspective have an interactive role in influencing AI acceptance. Senior clinicians with low-risk perception were highly accepting of AI, but those with high-risk perception of AI were substantially less accepting. In contrast, junior clinicians were more inclined to embrace AI when they perceived high risk, yet they hesitated to adopt AI when the perceived risk was minimal. Conclusions: More experienced clinicians were more likely to embrace AI compared to their junior counterparts, particularly when they perceived the risk as low.
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.