Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41646907›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Artificial intelligence in biomedical team science: perceptions, practices, and training needs.

Emily Slade, Kelsey Karnik, Caitline Phan, Megan E Hall, Yana Feygin, Kristen J McQuerry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Emily SladeDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States.
Kelsey KarnikDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States.
Caitline PhanDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States.
Megan E HallDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States.
Yana FeyginDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States.
Kristen J McQuerryDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in biomedical research, yet limited empirical work has described how researchers use AI tools on collaborative research teams and how they view their role within team-based research. This study examines researchers' experience with and attitudes toward AI use in collaborative research environments. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to 178 investigators engaged in collaborative research at the University of Kentucky. Questions assessed AI use across research and communication tasks, team-related decision-making practices, perceived benefits and concerns, and preferences for training and frameworks. Results: Thirty-nine participants responded (22%). AI use was heterogeneous: 26% had never used AI on research teams, while 42% used it weekly or daily. Nearly half reported that AI use was not discussed within teams prior to starting the work. Participants identified benefits in reducing repetitive tasks but expressed widespread concerns about misinformation, bias, and overreliance. Most participants indicated interest in self-guided training and structured frameworks, with priority topics including data security, ethical use, and practical strategies for team integration. Discussion: Findings indicate variability in both the use of AI tools on research teams and researchers' attitudes toward their integration. Results highlight gaps between perceived benefits and current practices and suggest a need for evidence-based training and frameworks that support responsible and effective AI use on collaborative research teams.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebiomedical researchcollaborationteam processesteam science

Identifiers

PMID41646907
PMCPMC12867778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.