ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2026
Optimistic and ambivalent attitudes toward clinical artificial intelligence.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into healthcare systems; however, healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions regarding AI remain insufficiently understood. This study aimed to evaluate healthcare professionals' perceptions of AI in clinical practice. Materials and methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study included 260 healthcare professionals, including physicians, nurses, and healthcare technicians working at a tertiary public hospital in Türkiye. Participants completed the Healthcare Professionals and Artificial Intelligence Questionnaire, which assessed demographic characteristics, AI knowledge, workplace AI use, attitudes toward AI applications, ethical and legal concerns, perceived professional impact, and educational needs. Results: Most participants reported limited AI knowledge; 64.6% indicated basic knowledge, whereas 23.1% reported no knowledge. Only 24.6% reported using AI-based systems in clinical practice, while 35.4% were uncertain whether such systems were used in their workplaces. Despite limited experience, attitudes toward recent AI developments were generally positive. Most participants expressed willingness to receive AI-related education (76.9%), although only 6.2% had previously received formal training. Nearly half of the participants believed that the human factor would remain essential in healthcare, whereas a similar proportion considered partial replacement by AI possible. Physicians demonstrated greater confidence in AI usefulness and stronger willingness to integrate AI into clinical decision-making than nurses and other healthcare professionals. Nurses primarily emphasized data security and privacy concerns, whereas physicians highlighted patient safety and misdiagnosis risk. Exploratory psychometric analyses demonstrated a three-factor structure with acceptable sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.765). Conclusion: Healthcare professionals generally perceive AI as a supportive tool rather than a replacement for human judgment. Limited AI literacy, uncertainty regarding legal responsibility, and insufficient training remain important barriers to responsible AI adoption. Profession-sensitive educational strategies and clearer governance frameworks may support safer AI integration into healthcare practice.
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.