Acceptance of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Among Japan’s Doctors and the Public: A Questionnaire Survey
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle