Background The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the medical industry promises many benefits, so AI has been introduced to medical practice primarily in developed countries. In Japan, the government is preparing for the rollout of AI in the medical industry. This rollout depends on doctors and the public accepting the technology. Therefore it is necessary to consider acceptance among doctors and among the public. However, little is known about the acceptance of AI in medicine in Japan. Objective This study aimed to obtain detailed data on the acceptance of AI in medicine by comparing the acceptance among Japanese doctors with that among the Japanese public. Methods We conducted an online survey, and the responses of doctors and members of the public were compared. AI in medicine was defined as the use of AI to determine diagnosis and treatment without requiring a doctor. A questionnaire was prepared referred to as the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, a model of behavior toward new technologies. It comprises 20 items, and each item was rated on a five-point scale. Using this questionnaire, we conducted an online survey in 2018 among 399 doctors and 600 members of the public. The sample-wide responses were analyzed, and then the responses of the doctors were compared with those of the public using t tests. Results Regarding the sample-wide responses (N=999), 653 (65.4%) of the respondents believed, in the future, AI in medicine would be necessary, whereas only 447 (44.7%) expressed an intention to use AI-driven medicine. Additionally, 730 (73.1%) believed that regulatory legislation was necessary, and 734 (73.5%) were concerned about where accountability lies. Regarding the comparison between doctors and the public, doctors (mean 3.43, SD 1.00) were more likely than members of the public (mean 3.23, SD 0.92) to express intention to use AI-driven medicine (P<.001), suggesting that optimism about AI in medicine is greater among doctors compared to the public. Conclusions Many of the respondents were optimistic about the role of AI in medicine. However, when asked whether they would like to use AI-driven medicine, they tended to give a negative response. This trend suggests that concerns about the lack of regulation and about accountability hindered acceptance. Additionally, the results revealed that doctors were more enthusiastic than members of the public regarding AI-driven medicine. For the successful implementation of AI in medicine, it would be necessary to inform the public and doctors about the relevant laws and to take measures to remove their concerns about them.

Compared to conventional X-ray therapy, proton beam therapy (PBT) has more clinical and physical advantages such as irradiation dose reduction to normal tissues for pediatric medulloblastoma. However, PBT is expensive. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of PBT for pediatric medulloblastoma with that of conventional X-ray therapy, while focusing on radiation-induced secondary cancers, which are rare, serious and negatively affect a patient’s quality of life (QOL). Based on a systematic review, a decision tree model was used for the cost-effectiveness analysis. This analysis was performed from the perspective of health care payers; the cost was estimated from medical fees. The target population was pediatric patients with medulloblastoma below 14 years old. The time horizon was set at 7.7 years after medulloblastoma treatment. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which was defined as the ratio of the difference in cost and lifetime attributable risk (LAR) between conventional X-ray therapy and PBT. The discount rate was set at 2% annually. Sensitivity analyses were performed to model uncertainty. Cost and LAR in conventional X-ray therapy and PBT were Japanese yen (JPY) 1 067 608 and JPY 2436061 and 42% and 7%, respectively. The ICER was JPY 3856398/LAR. In conclusion, PBT is more cost-effective than conventional X-ray therapy in reducing the risk of radiation-induced secondary cancers in pediatric medulloblastoma. Thus, our constructed ICER using LAR is one of the valid indicators for cost-effectiveness analysis in radiation-induced secondary cancer.

BACKGROUND The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the medical industry promises many benefits so AI has been introduced to medicine primarily in developed countries. In Japan, the government is preparing for the rollout of AI in the medical industry. This rollout depends on doctors and the public accepting the technology. It is therefore necessary to consider acceptance among doctors and among the public. However, little is known about the acceptance of AI in medicine. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to obtain detailed data on acceptance of AI in medicine by comparing the acceptance among Japanese doctors with that among the Japanese public. METHODS We conducted an online survey, and the responses of doctors and members of the public were compared. A questionnaire was prepared referred to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, a model of behavior toward new technologies. It comprises 20 items, and each item was rated on a five-point scale. Using this questionnaire, we conducted an online survey in 2018 among 399 doctors and 600 members of the public. The sample-wide responses were analyzed, and then the responses of the doctors were compared with those of the public using a Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS Regarding the sample-wide responses (N=999), 653 (65.4%) of the respondents believed that AI would be necessary in medicine in the future, whereas only 447 (44.7%) expressed an intention to use AI-driven medicine. Additionally, 730 (73.1%) believed that regulatory legislation was necessary, and 734 (73.5%) were concerned about where accountability lies. Regarding the comparison between doctors and the public, doctors (median; 4, mean; 3.43) were more likely than members of the public(median; 3, mean; 3.23) to express intention to use AI-driven medicine (P<.001), suggesting that optimism about AI in medicine is greater among doctors compared with the public. CONCLUSIONS Many of the respondents were optimistic with the role of AI in medicine. However, when asked whether they would like to use AI-driven medicine, they tended to give a negative response. This trend suggests that concerns about the lack of regulation and about accountability hindered acceptance. Additionally, the results revealed that doctors were more enthusiastic than members of the public regarding AI-driven medicine.