Trust in and Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Medicine: Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered technologies are being increasingly used in almost all fields, including medicine. However, to successfully implement medical AI applications, ensuring trust and acceptance toward such technologies is crucial for their successful spread and timely adoption worldwide. Although AI applications in medicine provide advantages to the current health care system, there are also various associated challenges regarding, for instance, data privacy, accountability, and equity and fairness, which could hinder medical AI application implementation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify factors related to trust in and acceptance of novel AI-powered medical technologies and to assess the relevance of those factors among relevant stakeholders. METHODS: This study used a mixed methods design. First, a rapid review of the existing literature was conducted, aiming to identify various factors related to trust in and acceptance of novel AI applications in medicine. Next, an electronic survey including the rapid review-derived factors was disseminated among key stakeholder groups. Participants (N=22) were asked to assess on a 5-point Likert scale (1=irrelevant to 5=relevant) to what extent they thought the various factors (N=19) were relevant to trust in and acceptance of novel AI applications in medicine. RESULTS: The rapid review (N=32 papers) yielded 110 factors related to trust and 77 factors related to acceptance toward AI technology in medicine. Closely related factors were assigned to 1 of the 19 overarching umbrella factors, which were further grouped into 4 categories: human-related (ie, the type of institution AI professionals originate from), technology-related (ie, the explainability and transparency of AI application processes and outcomes), ethical and legal (ie, data use transparency), and additional factors (ie, AI applications being environment friendly). The categorized 19 umbrella factors were presented as survey statements, which were evaluated by relevant stakeholders. Survey participants (N=22) represented researchers (n=18, 82%), technology providers (n=5, 23%), hospital staff (n=3, 14%), and policy makers (n=3, 14%). Of the 19 factors, 16 (84%) human-related, technology-related, ethical and legal, and additional factors were considered to be of high relevance to trust in and acceptance of novel AI applications in medicine. The patient's gender, age, and education level were found to be of low relevance (3/19, 16%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study could help the implementers of medical AI applications to understand what drives trust and acceptance toward AI-powered technologies among key stakeholders in medicine. Consequently, this would allow the implementers to identify strategies that facilitate trust in and acceptance of medical AI applications among key stakeholders and potential users.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,077 | 0,124 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».