ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Hematology-Oncology Fellows' Use of Artificial Intelligence: A Multicenter Educational Practice and Needs Assessment Survey.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly being incorporated within healthcare, including medical education. Hematology-oncology (HO) is a complex field and AI is of great value in education and practice. We explored HO fellow's confidence and concerns with use of AI, AI training that HO fellows currently receive, and interest in future AI training. Multi-institutional survey administered to fellows in six adult HO programs. The survey was distributed electronically over one month with weekly reminders. Results were collected in RedCap and analyzed using R. 36 of 153 potential participants responded (23.5% response rate). Almost all (35, 97%) reported using AI. Fellows who reported using AI for work used it primarily for patient care (28, 82%) and/or research (29, 85%). Most were "somewhat confident" in the accuracy of AI-generated clinical information (25, 74%) and found AI "somewhat reliable" for clinical decision support (25, 74%). Respondents cited concerns about the use of AI in clinical practice, most often reliability of clinical data (32, 94%). Only one respondent (2.8%) received formal education on AI during fellowship and over who received informal training only reported its quality as "fair" or "poor" with 29 of these remaining 35 (83%) respondents interested in formal training. 31 fellows (86%) reported thinking AI would be important in their future career plans and 17 (49%) felt AI training should be required for HO fellows. While almost all HO fellows use AI, formal education in AI is rare in HO fellowship. Most fellows expressed interested in such training and believe that AI will be important in their careers, but also expressed concerns about use of AI, especially reliability of AI-generated clinical data. We plan to create formal curricula specific to HO training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42509379What 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.