Patients’ Attitudes and Beliefs Toward Artificial Intelligence Use in Cancer Care: Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is being rapidly integrated into oncologic care, yet little is known about how patients perceive these applications. Understanding patient perceptions is critical to ensuring AI applications align with their needs and preferences. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate oncology patients' attitudes and beliefs on the use of AI across clinical touchpoints in cancer care. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study with adult oncology patients from September to December 2024. The survey assessed patients' comfort with AI use across 8 clinical touchpoints of cancer care (eg, screening, diagnosis, treatment) on a 5-point Likert scale (1=very uncomfortable to 5=very comfortable). Patients also rated their concerns about AI, including potential harms related to its use (eg, medical errors, privacy breaches), on a 3-point Likert scale (1=not concerned to 3=very concerned). Results: Of 383 patients approached, 330 (86.2% response rate) participated; 184 (55.9%) were male, 162 (49.4%) were aged 65 years or older, 35 (10.8%) were Black, 40 (12.1%) were Hispanic or Latino, and 233 (72.6%) were actively receiving cancer treatment. Patients were most comfortable with AI use in cancer screening (80.2%) and supportive care applications, including exercise (78.2%), diet (74.8%), and herbs/supplements (72.4%). Patients were least comfortable with AI use to assist with diagnosis (70.4%), symptom management (67.5%), treatment planning (64.8%), and prognosis (61.5%). Nonetheless, about half (49.7%) were at least somewhat concerned with the use of AI in cancer care, most commonly about the loss of human interaction and medical errors. Conclusions: Although the majority of oncology patients had a favorable view of AI in cancer care, nearly half had concerns about potential harms. Incorporating patient perspectives into AI development is essential for patient-centered and high-quality cancer 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".