ArticleThe British journal of radiology2026
Current patient attitudes to artificial intelligence applications in radiology.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesHealthcare systems are now funding implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in radiology, which will change the experience of care for patients. Currently, there is still limited evidence of patient attitudes to AI implementation in healthcare. We aimed to determine current attitudes to AI of people attending hospital for diagnostic imaging.
methodsThis prospective study was conducted at a tertiary hospital network. Following ethical approval and informed consent, an 18-item questionnaire was administered to patients attending for outpatient imaging, assessing their views on AI. Factor analysis was undertaken to identify themes.
resultsIn total, 162 people completed the questionnaire; 56% of whom were female (91/162). Most people thought that AI in healthcare would be useful (78%) and should be used (64%). People felt strongly that doctors should be responsible for decisions involving AI (71%). Three latent factors were identified: "utility and safety," "interaction," and "comparability to doctors." People were positive about the utility and safety of AI, were concerned about a loss of personal interaction, and compared AI unfavorably to doctors. There was strong opposition to autonomous AI decisions.
conclusionsThe findings of this study map current patient acceptability of AI in healthcare and should inform strategies to balance AI ethical implementation with delivering value to patients and the healthcare system. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study provides insights into current patient attitudes to AI in healthcare in a UK setting where AI tools are actively being deployed, building on prior European surveys and guiding ongoing AI design and implementation.
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.