ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Health literacy and attitudes toward clinical AI: a cross-sectional study in Istanbul.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To examine whether health literacy is associated with attitudes toward clinical artificial intelligence (AI) and to describe subgroup differences in this association. Methods: We used two samples. A validation sample ( Results: In the validation sample, a four-factor, second-order structure of the AI-KUAS was supported (CFI = .955, TLI = .943, SRMR = .037, RMSEA = .092), with high internal consistency ( Conclusion: Health literacy was positively and independently associated with more favorable attitudes toward clinical AI. Psychometric results suggested that perceived benefit and intention to use were closely related yet distinct dimensions within a four-factor structure. The findings align with literacy-aligned explanations, clear disclosure of AI use, and visible human oversight as practical implementation levers. Given the cross-sectional design and self-reported outcomes, longitudinal studies and measurement-invariance testing are warranted to support stronger causal and cross-group inference in future work.
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.