Assessment of patient and physician sentiment on artificial intelligence use in US healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Medical applications of artificial intelligence (AI) range from diagnostic support and electronic health record optimization to personalized treatment and administrative automation. Despite these advances, AI integration into healthcare requires the acceptance and trust of clinicians and patients. Understanding their perspectives is critical to guiding effective and ethical AI adoption in medicine. Methods We conducted a nationwide, anonymous, online survey of self-identified physicians and patients in the United States using the Clinician and Patient Experience Registry (CaPER) platform. The survey employed Random Domain Intercept Technology (RDIT) and Random Device Engagement (RDE) to collect nationally-representative online responses while minimizing known survey biases. Respondents were stratified into physicians ( n = 382) or patients ( n = 760), and completed a series of questions assessing demographics, comfort with AI-supported decision-making, trust in AI vs. human clinicians, and perceived impact of AI on the physician-patient relationship. Data were analyzed descriptively and comparatively, including specialty-specific sub-analyses among physicians. Results A total of 1,142 complete responses were analyzed. Both physicians and patients reported generally positive attitudes toward AI-supported medical decision-making, with the majority expressing comfort or neutrality. Approximately one-third of both groups favored a collaborative model integrating both human and AI input. Specialty-specific analysis revealed higher comfort with AI among procedure-based disciplines, while diagnostic-oriented specialties expressed more reservations. Respondents were generally evenly divided regarding the anticipated impact of AI on the physician-patient relationship, with many predicting a strengthening effect. Conclusions This large-scale online survey highlights a generally favorable outlook toward AI integration among both physicians and patients, with notable variation by medical specialty for physicians. The findings underscore the importance of tailoring AI implementation strategies to specific clinical contexts and maintaining a focus on human-AI collaboration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".