Knowledge is not all you need for comfort in use of AI in healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is rapidly expanding, transforming areas such as diagnostics, drug discovery, and patient monitoring. Despite these advances, public perceptions of AI in healthcare, particularly in Canada, remain underexplored. This study investigates the relationship between Canadians' knowledge, comfort, and trust in AI, focusing on key sociodemographic factors like age, gender, education, and income. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Using data from the 2021 Canadian Digital Health Survey of 12,052 respondents, we employed ordinal logistic and multivariate polynomial regression analyses to uncover trends and disparities. RESULTS: Findings reveal that women and older adults consistently report lower levels of knowledge and comfort with AI, with middle-aged women expressing the most significant discomfort. Comfort levels are closely tied to concerns over data privacy, especially regarding the use of identifiable personal health data. Healthcare professionals exhibited heightened discomfort with AI, indicating potential issues with trust in AI's reliability and ethical governance. CONCLUSIONS: Our results underscore that increasing knowledge alone does not necessarily lead to greater comfort with AI in healthcare. Addressing public concerns through robust data governance, transparency, and inclusive AI design is essential to fostering trust and successful integration of AI in healthcare systems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".