Knowledge and Awareness of Generative Artificial Intelligence Use in Medicine Among International Stakeholders: A Cross‐Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of medical stakeholders regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among stakeholders in medicine. Participants included researchers, clinicians, and medical journal editors with varying degrees of familiarity with GAI tools. The survey questionnaire comprised 40 questions covering four main dimensions: basic information, knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to GAI tools. Descriptive analysis, Pearson's correlation, and multivariable regression were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The overall awareness rate of GAI tools was 93.3%. Participants demonstrated moderate knowledge (mean score 17.71 ± 5.56), positive attitudes (mean score 73.32 ± 15.83), and reasonable practices (mean score 40.70 ± 12.86). Factors influencing knowledge included education level, geographic region, and attitudes (p < 0.05). Attitudes were influenced by work experience and knowledge (p < 0.05), while practices were driven by both knowledge and attitudes (p < 0.001). Participants from outside China scored higher in all dimensions compared to those from China (p < 0.001). Additionally, 74.0% of participants emphasized the importance of reporting GAI usage in research, and 73.9% advocated for naming the specific tool used. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight a growing awareness and generally positive attitude toward GAI tools among medical stakeholders, alongside the recognition of their ethical implications and the necessity for standardized reporting practices. Targeted training and the development of clear reporting guidelines are recommended to enhance the effective use of GAI tools in medical research and practice.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".