ArticleBMJ open2025
Opinions of the UK general public and stroke survivors in using artificial intelligence and 'opt-out' models of consent in medical research: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare often requires large, confidential clinical datasets. However, a recent UK government survey revealed that 20-40% of the public remain sceptical of its use in health research due to concerns about data security, patient-practitioner communication and commercialisation of data. A greater understanding of public attitudes is therefore needed, particularly in the context of stroke research.In this article, we describe the patient and public involvement work undertaken for the AI-Based-Stroke-Risk-fActor-Classification-and-Treatment (ABSTRACT) project, which aims to train AI models to predict future stroke risk from the electronic health records of 1 18 736 patients.
aimsWe aimed to evaluate the opinions of stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) patients, caregivers and members of the public on the following themes: (1) the acceptability of using AI to predict stroke from electronic health records, (2) obtaining these data using an opt-out model of consent and (3) allowing access to this dataset from members both within and outside of the routine clinical care team.
methodsA total of 83 participants were recruited via the National Health Service social media and by approaching hospital inpatients. Participants were first provided with background information on stroke, AI in medical research and ABSTRACT's proposed data handling protocol. A mixed methods approach was then used to explore each of the above themes using online survey, semistructured focus groups and one-to-one interviews.
resultsNearly all participants felt that it was appropriate to use patient data to train AI models to predict stroke risk and that it was acceptable to obtain these data via an opt-out model of consent. Almost all participants also agreed that data could be shared within and outside of the routine clinical care team, provided it was General Data Protection Regulation compliant and used for medical research only.
conclusionThe public and those with lived stroke/TIA experience appeared to support using deidentified medical datasets for AI-driven stroke risk prediction under an opt-out consent model. However, this is provided that the research conducted is transparent, for a clear medical purpose and adheres to strict data security measures.
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.