MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408672421 · doi:10.1101/2025.03.15.25324029

Patient Attitudes Toward Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Care: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4408672421 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Hilbers, Navid Nekain, Alan Bates, John-Jose Nuñez

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancerPatient carePsychologyMedicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract PURPOSE To synthesize existing literature on patient attitudes toward AI in cancer care and identify knowledge gaps that can inform future research and clinical implementation. DESIGN A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched for peer-reviewed primary research studies published until February 1, 2025. The Population-Concept-Context framework guided study selection, focusing on adult patients with cancer and their attitudes toward AI. Studies with quantitative or qualitative data were included. Two independent reviewers screened studies, with a third resolving disagreements. Data were synthesized into tabular and narrative summaries. RESULTS Our search yielded 1,240 citations, of which 19 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing 2,114 patients with cancer across 15 countries. Most studies used quantitative methods (n=9) such as questionnaires or surveys. The most studied cancers were prostate, melanoma, breast, and colorectal cancer. While patients with cancer generally supported AI when used as a physician-guided tool, concerns about depersonalization, treatment bias, and data security highlighted challenges in implementation. Trust in AI was shaped by physician endorsement and patient familiarity, with greater trust when AI was physician-guided. Geographic differences were observed, with greater AI acceptance in Asia, while skepticism was more prevalent in North America and Europe. Additionally, patients with metastatic cancer were underrepresented, limiting insights into AI perceptions in this population. CONCLUSION This scoping review provides the first synthesis of patient attitudes toward AI across all cancer types and highlights concerns unique to patients with cancer. Clinicians can use these findings to enhance patient acceptance of AI by positioning it as a physician-guided tool and ensuring its integration aligns with patient values and expectations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0210.022
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.326
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education→French-language works237,207→