ArticleScientific reports2025
Women's perspectives on integrating artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening services in Abu Dhabi, united Arab Emirates.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) offers opportunities to enhance breast cancer screening by improving diagnostic accuracy and reducing radiologist workload, yet its successful adoption depends on public trust and acceptability. This cross-sectional survey of 562 Emirati women aged 18 years and older in Abu Dhabi explored knowledge, perceptions, and willingness to participate in AI-supported screening. Using a structured, culturally adapted questionnaire, descriptive statistics summarized attitudes and concerns, and logistic regression identified predictors of AI-related knowledge. Most participants (69%) believed AI could improve diagnostic accuracy, although only 11% fully trusted AI without human oversight. Human clinicians remained central to decision-making, with 86% of women preferring physician judgment in cases of conflict between AI and radiologist findings. Willingness to undergo AI-supported screening was high (74%), though concerns about false results (59%) and data misuse (36%) were prevalent. Being a health professional (aOR = 2.76, 95% CI: 1.23-6.43) and having higher knowledge of breast screening methods (aOR = 8.29, 95% CI: 3.98-18.6) were significantly associated with awareness of AI use in breast cancer screening. These findings indicate that while Emirati women show cautious support for AI in breast cancer screening, trust, cultural values, and baseline knowledge are key determinants of acceptance. Public health strategies that emphasize transparent communication, robust data protection, and education on both conventional and AI-assisted screening are essential to promote equitable and ethical integration of AI technologies into cancer control programs.
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.