Expectations of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Professionals Toward Artificial Intelligence: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) applications offer numerous opportunities to improve health care. To be used in the intensive care unit, AI must meet the needs of staff, and potential barriers must be addressed through joint action by all stakeholders. It is thus critical to assess the needs and concerns of anesthesiologists and intensive care physicians related to AI in health care throughout Europe. OBJECTIVE: This Europe-wide, cross-sectional observational study investigates how potential users of AI systems in anesthesiology and intensive care assess the opportunities and risks of the new technology. The web-based questionnaire was based on the established analytic model of acceptance of innovations by Rogers to record 5 stages of innovation acceptance. METHODS: The questionnaire was sent twice in 2 months (March 11, 2021, and November 5, 2021) through the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) member email distribution list. A total of 9294 ESAIC members were reached, of whom 728 filled out the questionnaire (response rate 728/9294, 8%). Due to missing data, 27 questionnaires were excluded. The analyses were conducted with 701 participants. RESULTS: A total of 701 questionnaires (female: n=299, 42%) were analyzed. Overall, 265 (37.8%) of the participants have been in contact with AI and evaluated the benefits of this technology higher (mean 3.22, SD 0.39) than participants who stated no previous contact (mean 3.01, SD 0.48). Physicians see the most benefits of AI application in early warning systems (335/701, 48% strongly agreed, and 358/701, 51% agreed). Major potential disadvantages were technical problems (236/701, 34% strongly agreed, and 410/701, 58% agreed) and handling difficulties (126/701, 18% strongly agreed, and 462/701, 66% agreed), both of which could be addressed by Europe-wide digitalization and education. In addition, the lack of a secure legal basis for the research and use of medical AI in the European Union leads doctors to expect problems with legal liability (186/701, 27% strongly agreed, and 374/701, 53% agreed) and data protection (148/701, 21% strongly agreed, and 343/701, 49% agreed). CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiologists and intensive care personnel are open to AI applications in their professional field and expect numerous benefits for staff and patients. Regional differences in the digitalization of the private sector are not reflected in the acceptance of AI among health care professionals. Physicians anticipate technical difficulties and lack a stable legal basis for the use of AI. Training for medical staff could increase the benefits of AI in professional medicine. Therefore, we suggest that the development and implementation of AI in health care require a solid technical, legal, and ethical basis, as well as adequate education and training of users.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".