Patients’ attitudes toward artificial intelligence (AI) in cancer care: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence broadly refers to computer systems that simulate intelligent behaviour with minimal human intervention. Emphasizing patient-centered care, research has explored patients' perspectives on artificial intelligence in medical care, indicating general acceptance of the technology but also concerns about supervision. However, these views have not been systematically examined from the perspective of patients with cancer, whose opinions may differ given the distinct psychosocial toll of the disease. OBJECTIVES: This protocol describes a scoping review aimed at summarizing the existing literature on the attitudes of patients with cancer toward the use of artificial intelligence in their medical care. The primary goal is to identify knowledge gaps and highlight opportunities for future research. METHODS: This scoping review protocol will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA-ScR). The electronic databases MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL will be searched for peer-reviewed primary research articles published in academic journals. We will have two independent reviewers screen the articles retrieved from the literature search and select relevant studies based on our inclusion criteria, with a third reviewer resolving any disagreements. We will then compile the data from the included articles into a narrative summary and discuss the implications for clinical practice and future research. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this will be the first scoping review to map the existing literature on the attitudes of patients with cancer regarding artificial intelligence in their medical care.
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 | 0.098 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.012 |
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".