ArticleJMIR cancer2026
Patients' Attitudes and Beliefs Toward Artificial Intelligence Use in Cancer Care: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.
Article in JMIR cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The OR black box in urology: A survey on patient acceptance and confidence in AI-assisted surgery.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Patients' perception towards large language models in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery: a single-centre survey.Frontiers in digital health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is being rapidly integrated into oncologic care, yet little is known about how patients perceive these applications. Understanding patient perceptions is critical to ensuring AI applications align with their needs and preferences. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate oncology patients' attitudes and beliefs on the use of AI across clinical touchpoints in cancer care. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study with adult oncology patients from September to December 2024. The survey assessed patients' comfort with AI use across 8 clinical touchpoints of cancer care (eg, screening, diagnosis, treatment) on a 5-point Likert scale (1=very uncomfortable to 5=very comfortable). Patients also rated their concerns about AI, including potential harms related to its use (eg, medical errors, privacy breaches), on a 3-point Likert scale (1=not concerned to 3=very concerned). Results: Of 383 patients approached, 330 (86.2% response rate) participated; 184 (55.9%) were male, 162 (49.4%) were aged 65 years or older, 35 (10.8%) were Black, 40 (12.1%) were Hispanic or Latino, and 233 (72.6%) were actively receiving cancer treatment. Patients were most comfortable with AI use in cancer screening (80.2%) and supportive care applications, including exercise (78.2%), diet (74.8%), and herbs/supplements (72.4%). Patients were least comfortable with AI use to assist with diagnosis (70.4%), symptom management (67.5%), treatment planning (64.8%), and prognosis (61.5%). Nonetheless, about half (49.7%) were at least somewhat concerned with the use of AI in cancer care, most commonly about the loss of human interaction and medical errors. Conclusions: Although the majority of oncology patients had a favorable view of AI in cancer care, nearly half had concerns about potential harms. Incorporating patient perspectives into AI development is essential for patient-centered and high-quality cancer care.
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.