Acceptance of clinical artificial intelligence among physicians and medical students: A systematic review with cross-sectional survey

Abstract

BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) needs to be accepted and understood by physicians and medical students, but few have systematically assessed their attitudes. We investigated clinical AI acceptance among physicians and medical students around the world to provide implementation guidance.Materials and methodsWe conducted a two-stage study, involving a foundational systematic review of physician and medical student acceptance of clinical AI. This enabled us to design a suitable web-based questionnaire which was then distributed among practitioners and trainees around the world.ResultsSixty studies were included in this systematic review, and 758 respondents from 39 countries completed the online questionnaire. Five (62.50%) of eight studies reported 65% or higher awareness regarding the application of clinical AI. Although, only 10–30% had actually used AI and 26 (74.28%) of 35 studies suggested there was a lack of AI knowledge. Our questionnaire uncovered 38% awareness rate and 20% utility rate of clinical AI, although 53% lacked basic knowledge of clinical AI. Forty-five studies mentioned attitudes toward clinical AI, and over 60% from 38 (84.44%) studies were positive about AI, although they were also concerned about the potential for unpredictable, incorrect results. Seventy-seven percent were optimistic about the prospect of clinical AI. The support rate for the statement that AI could replace physicians ranged from 6 to 78% across 40 studies which mentioned this topic. Five studies recommended that efforts should be made to increase collaboration. Our questionnaire showed 68% disagreed that AI would become a surrogate physician, but believed it should assist in clinical decision-making. Participants with different identities, experience and from different countries hold similar but subtly different attitudes.ConclusionMost physicians and medical students appear aware of the increasing application of clinical AI, but lack practical experience and related knowledge. Overall, participants have positive but reserved attitudes about AI. In spite of the mixed opinions around clinical AI becoming a surrogate physician, there was a consensus that collaborations between the two should be strengthened. Further education should be conducted to alleviate anxieties associated with change and adopting new technologies.

Evaluation of acceptance, attitude, and knowledge towards artificial intelligence and its application from the point of view of physicians and nurses: A provincial survey study in Iran: A cross‐sectional descriptive‐analytical study

“…The second category of worries is caused by the unpredictable errors of AI devices such as the lack of data from rural communities and ethnic minorities and algorithms with poor explaining ability and low accuracy 27 . Therefore, it may not seem so strange that 77.6% of our participants also did not trust the analysis of patient information by AI and their reports.…”

“…On the other hand, they should also cooperate with scientists in the field of computer and AI to build and develop AI tools and to adapt to it as best and accurately as possible. Because it will not be possible to advance the goals without taking advantage of the clinical insight of these people 27 …”

Artificial intelligence in colposcopic examination: A promising tool to assist junior colposcopists

“…The implementation of the CAIADS still has the following problems in less-developed areas ( 13 , 46 ). First, the quality of available cervical information (screening data, colposcopy images, etc.)…”

Use of Artificial Intelligence for Acquisition of Limited Echocardiograms: A Randomized Controlled Trial for Educational Outcomes

“…16,17,16,18 In this study, we found the participants had low to moderate levels of trust in the AI system, and the AI-group did not report increased trust in the system at follow-up. This lack of trust despite improved performance with AI is well described outside of POCUS, 22,28,29 which underscores the need for effective curricula on how to optimally integrate AI with clinical care. 30 Moreover, the AI group did not report higher confidence levels in their own skills despite significantly higher levels of performance.…”