ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Oncologists' knowledge, attitudes and needs about artificial intelligence in clinical oncology in Luxembourg in 2026: a national cross-sectional survey (AICO study).
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly entering the field of medical oncology. Clinician literacy, ethical awareness, and governance structures are prerequisites for safe implementation, yet real-world data on adoption, training and ethical perceptions from small European healthcare systems remain scarce. Methods: We conducted an anonymous national cross-sectional online survey among all practicing physicians (medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, haematologist-oncologists) and oncology residents in Luxembourg ( Results: In total 25 physicians responded (59.5%), 88% (95% CI 70.0-95.8) of whom had no formal AI training. All respondents had used large language models (LLMs), with 52% (33.5-70.0) reporting professional use for non-clinical tasks and 20% (8.9-39.1) for clinical decision support. Most participants (84%; 65.3-93.6) supported the use of AI as a clinical decision-support tool, yet 88% (70.0-95.8) of physicians perceived they would bear primarily legal responsibility for AI-related errors. The main barriers to implementation were lack of validated tools (68%; 48.4-82.8) and regulatory/legal uncertainty (64%; 44.5-79.8). Notably, 76% (56.6-88.5) of respondents reported encountering patients who brought AI-generated medical information to consultations. Discussion: AI adoption among oncologists in Luxembourg is already widespread, including emerging clinical use, despite limited formal training and unresolved medico-legal frameworks. This "implementation-governance gap" highlights the need for structured education, validated clinical tools, and regulatory clarity to ensure safe and ethically sound integration of AI into oncology 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.