ArticlePLOS digital health2025
A quantitative study of pathologists' perceptions towards artificial intelligence-assisted diagnostic system.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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.
- A five-phase evaluation framework for diagnostic and predictive medical artificial intelligence.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in clinical genetics: Current practice and attitudes among the clinical genetics workforce.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Article
- Physicians' attitudes and perceptions toward the integration of artificial intelligence into pediatric hematology-oncology in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The successful implementation of artificial intelligence-assisted diagnostic system (AIADS) in pathology relies not only on the maturity of AI technology but also on pathologists' cognition and acceptance of AI. However, research on pathologists' perceptions towards AIADS is limited. This study aims to explore pathologists' knowledge, attitudes, and practice toward AIADS and identify key factors influencing their willingness to use it, providing insights for the effective integration of AI technology in pathology. An online, nationwide, cross-sectional survey is to investigate pathologists' knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intention/practice regarding AIADS with a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive analysis is used to present the results, while logistic regression examines factors influencing AIADS adoption. The mediating effect of attitude in the association between knowledge and behavioral intention is also explored. A total of 224 pathologists were surveyed, with 85 (37.9%) having used AIADS and 139 (62.1%) not using it. The mean scores for knowledge, attitude, and behavioral intention were 3.42 ± 0.97, 3.48 ± 0.44, and 3.47 ± 0.44, respectively. Pathologists who had used AIADS scored higher in knowledge, attitude, and behavioral intention, with clearer attitudes toward AIADS. Over 80% of pathologists supported the use of AIADS in clinical diagnostics, citing improved diagnostic speed and reduced workload as key reasons. The main concerns about AIADS were its diagnostic accuracy. Logistic regression analysis indicated that a greater likelihood of willingness to use AIADS was associated with not having used it before (OR=2.462, 95%CI 1.087-5.573), as well as with higher knowledge scores (OR=1.140, 95%CI 1.076-1.208) and more positive attitude scores (OR=1.119, 95%CI 1.053-1.189). Mediation analysis indicated an indirect path from knowledge to behavioral intention through attitude among individuals who have used AIADS, with the mediation effect accounting for 59.4%. In conclusion, most pathologists support the use of AIADS in clinical practice, but improvements in diagnostic performance are necessary. Enhancing pathologists' knowledge, attitudes, and user experience is crucial for the broader adoption of AIADS.
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.