ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Cognitive differences and ethical concerns in artificial intelligence in healthcare: a comparative text mining study of public and healthcare professional discussions.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to investigate the cognitive differences and ethical concerns regarding artificial intelligence in healthcare between the public and healthcare professionals and to provide empirical evidence for ethical governance and risk communication.
methodsA text mining approach was adopted to comparatively analyze Chinese public social media and professional medical forums. A total of 4,042 valid texts were included, comprising 2,088 from the public corpus and 1,954 from the healthcare professional corpus. SnowNLP sentiment analysis, the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic model, and co-word network analysis were applied to reconstruct and compare the structures of concern between the two groups.
resultsBoth groups were dominated by positive sentiment toward artificial intelligence in healthcare, although healthcare professionals showed a higher positive tendency (75.2%) than the public (68.0%), while the public exhibited a higher degree of caution. LDA topic analysis and co-word network analysis showed that both groups focused heavily on the role positioning and replacement boundaries of artificial intelligence. However, their specific focal concerns differed significantly. Healthcare professionals placed greater emphasis on occupational impact and practice-related concerns, mainly involving clinical application, responsibility, and humanistic care. In contrast, the public focused more on technical conditions and risk perception, emphasizing practical uses in healthcare settings, the reliability of data and models, and issues of responsibility and risk.
conclusionAlthough both the public and healthcare professionals hold relatively positive attitudes toward artificial intelligence in healthcare, their cognitive structures exhibit clear group differences. The subsequent ethical governance and advancement of artificial intelligence in healthcare require clarifying its functional boundaries while simultaneously addressing the practice-related concerns of healthcare professionals and the risk-related concerns of the public.
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.