Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41491377›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2026

Patients' views on the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare: Artificial Intelligence Survey Aachen (AISA)-a prospective survey.

Sophie G Baldus, Martin Wiesmann, Ute Habel, Anna Gerhards, Dimah Hasan, Charlotte S Weyland, Daniel Truhn, Marian M Hasl, Benjamin Clemens, Omid Nikoubashman

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07733752 (When AI Is the First Clinician), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07733752 recruitingnot on this map

When AI Is the First Clinician: Impact of Pre-Visit AI Use on Presentation, Diagnostic Expectations, and Shared Decision-Making in Spine Physical Therapy

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorAssiut UniversityRan2026 to 2027Enrolled200ConditionsLow Back Pain, Neck Pain, RadiculopathyArmsre-visit AI symptom-checker use
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Sophie G BaldusDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Martin WiesmannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Ute HabelDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Anna GerhardsDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Dimah HasanDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Charlotte S WeylandDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Daniel TruhnDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Marian M HaslDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Benjamin Clemens *Projektträger Jülich, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany.
Omid Nikoubashman *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. onikoubashman@ukaachen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2055-4217

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe use of AI is gaining relevance in healthcare. There is limited information regarding the views of patients on AI in healthcare. The aim of our study was to assess the views of patients on the use of AI in healthcare with an on-site questionnaire. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients in our tertiary hospital with a diagnostic imaging appointment were invited to complete a paper-based questionnaire between December 2022 and October 2023. We asked about socio-demographic data, experience, knowledge, and their opinion on the use of AI in healthcare, focusing on the fields (1) diagnostics, (2) therapy, and (3) triage.

resultsOut of a total of 198 patients (mean age 49.41 ± 17.6 years, 99 female), 91.5% stated that they expected benefits from the implementation of AI in healthcare, although 73.4% rated their knowledge of AI as moderate to none. The majority of patients were in favour of using AI in diagnostics (87.2%) and therapy (73.1%), while only 28.2% approved its use in patient triage. 84.0% wanted to be informed about the use of AI in at least one of the mentioned areas. Participants with higher education, higher self-assessed knowledge of AI and personal experience with AI showed greater approval for AI in healthcare.

conclusionOur interviewed patients have a rather open attitude towards AI in healthcare, with differentiated views depending on the topic; patients are in favour of the use of AI, especially in diagnostics and to a lesser extent also for therapy support, but they reject its use for triage. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Overall, the results emphasise the need for widespread efforts to address patient concerns about AI in healthcare, including enhancing understanding and acceptance while protecting marginalised groups. This will help clinical radiology to adopt AI more effectively. KEY POINTS: There is limited information on patients' views of AI in healthcare, often focused on specific groups, limiting generalizability. Patients are open to AI in healthcare, supporting its use in diagnostics and therapy, but rejecting its use for triage. Overall, patients want to be informed about AI usage and participants with higher education and AI experience showed more approval.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceMachine learningPatientQuestionnaireSurvey

Identifiers

PMID41491377
PMCPMC12770056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.