ArticleScientific reports2025
An empirical study on the psychological impact of medical AI on patients undergoing dental surgery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stakeholder experience with artificial intelligence in healthcare: a bibliometric study of satisfaction, trust, acceptance, and patient engagement.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Generative AI Engagement and Perceived Nutrition-Oriented Feeding Practices Among Urban Indonesian Mothers: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the rapid integration of artificial intelligence technology into the medical field, this study focuses on dental surgery and systematically examines the complex impact mechanisms of AI on patients' treatment anxiety and postoperative satisfaction through three progressive experiments involving a total of 470 participants. Guided by a TAM-informed, trust-augmented framework, we examine the mediating role of trust in AI and the moderating effects of gender and information transparency. Key findings indicate: (1) AI technology significantly reduces patient treatment anxiety levels (p < 0.001) and enhances postoperative satisfaction (p < 0.001); (2) Across the three studies, trust in AI functioned as a partial mediator overall. The mediation did not emerge in the text-based simulation (Study 1), emerged in the video simulation (Study 2), and became robust in the clinical field study (Study 3; indirect effect 95% CI [- 0.89, - 0.21]) while the direct paths remained significant; (3) Gender differences significantly moderate the effects of AI technology, with female patients showing lower levels of technology trust; (4) Technology transparency positively moderates the therapeutic effect of AI application. Under high transparency conditions, the anxiety relief effect of AI technology (ΔM = 3.04) is significantly stronger than that under low transparency conditions (ΔM = 2.06). Collectively, the findings indicate that trust in AI operates as a partial, context-dependent mediator whose magnitude increases with ecological validity and transparency, clarifying when and how AI use relates to patient anxiety and satisfaction.
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.