Roles and Competencies of Doctors in Artificial Intelligence Implementation: Qualitative Analysis Through Physician Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a term used to describe the use of computers and technology to emulate human intelligence mechanisms. Although AI is known to affect health services, the impact of information provided by AI on the patient-physician relationship in actual practice is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of introducing AI functions into the medical field on the role of the physician or physician-patient relationship, as well as potential concerns in the AI era. METHODS: We conducted focus group interviews in Tokyo's suburbs with physicians recruited through snowball sampling. The interviews were conducted in accordance with the questions listed in the interview guide. A verbatim transcript recording of all interviews was qualitatively analyzed using content analysis by all authors. Similarly, extracted code was grouped into subcategories, categories, and then core categories. We continued interviewing, analyzing, and discussing until we reached data saturation. In addition, we shared the results with all interviewees and confirmed the content to ensure the credibility of the analysis results. RESULTS: A total of 9 participants who belonged to various clinical departments in the 3 groups were interviewed. The same interviewers conducted the interview as the moderator each time. The average group interview time for the 3 groups was 102 minutes. Content saturation and theme development were achieved with the 3 groups. We identified three core categories: (1) functions expected to be replaced by AI, (2) functions still expected of human physicians, and (3) concerns about the medical field in the AI era. We also summarized the roles of physicians and patients, as well as the changes in the clinical environment in the age of AI. Some of the current functions of the physician were primarily replaced by AI functions, while others were inherited as the functions of the physician. In addition, "functions extended by AI" obtained by processing massive amounts of data will emerge, and a new role for physicians will be created to deal with them. Accordingly, the importance of physician functions, such as responsibility and commitment based on values, will increase, which will simultaneously increase the expectations of the patients that physicians will perform these functions. CONCLUSIONS: We presented our findings on how the medical processes of physicians and patients will change as AI technology is fully implemented. Promoting interdisciplinary discussions on how to overcome the challenges is essential, referring to the discussions being conducted in other fields.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".