Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41726446›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2024

When AI Writes Back: Ethical Considerations by Physicians on AI-Drafted Patient Message Replies.

Di Hu, Yawen Guo, Ha Na Cho, Emilie Chow, Dana B Mukamel, Dara Sorkin, Andrew Reikes, Danielle Perret, Deepti Pandita, Kai Zheng

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Di HuUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Yawen GuoUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Ha Na ChoUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Emilie ChowUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Dana B MukamelUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Dara SorkinUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Andrew ReikesUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Danielle PerretUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Deepti PanditaUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Kai ZhengUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.

Funding

Institute for Clinical and Translational ScienceUM1TR004927 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI DAN M COOPER, Eric J. Vilain · 2024 to 2026
$12.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004927
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing burden of responding to large volumes of patient messages has become a key factor contributing to physician burnout. Generative AI (GenAI) shows great promise to alleviate this burden by automatically drafting patient message replies. The ethical implications of this use have however not been fully explored. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a qualitative interview study with 21 physicians who participated in a GenAI pilot program. We found that notable ethical considerations expressed by the physician participants included oversight as ethical safeguard, transparency and patient consent of AI use, patient misunderstanding of AI's role, and patient privacy and data security as prerequisites. Additionally, our findings suggest that the physicians believe the ethical responsibility of using GenAI in this context primarily lies with users, not with the technology. These findings may provide useful insights into guiding the future implementation of GenAI in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePhysiciansComputer SecurityConfidentialityGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansInterviews as TopicPhysician-Patient RelationsPilot Projects

Identifiers

PMID41726446
PMCPMC12919555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.