4.7 Article

Physician Confidence in Artificial Intelligence: An Online Mobile Survey

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

JMIR PUBLICATIONS, INC
DOI: 10.2196/12422

Keywords

artificial intelligence; AI; awareness; physicians

Funding

  1. Soonchunhyang University [20180005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: It is expected that artificial intelligence (AI) will be used extensively in the medical field in the future. Objective: The purpose of this study is to investigate the awareness of AI among Korean doctors and to assess physicians' attitudes toward the medical application of AI. Methods: We conducted an online survey composed of 11 closed-ended questions using Google Forms. The survey consisted of questions regarding the recognition of and attitudes toward AI, the development direction of AI in medicine, and the possible risks of using AI in the medical field. Results: A total of 669 participants completed the survey. Only 40 (5.9%) answered that they had good familiarity with AI. However, most participants considered AI useful in the medical field (558/669, 83.4% agreement). The advantage of using AI was seen as the ability to analyze vast amounts of high-quality, clinically relevant data in real time. Respondents agreed that the area of medicine in which AI would be most useful is disease diagnosis (558/669, 83.4% agreement). One possible problem cited by the participants was that AI would not be able to assist in unexpected situations owing to inadequate information (196/669, 29.3%). Less than half of the participants(294/669, 43.9%) agreed that AI is diagnostically superior to human doctors. Only 237 (35.4%) answered that they agreed that AI could replace them in their jobs. Conclusions: This study suggests that Korean doctors and medical students have favorable attitudes toward AI in the medical field. The majority of physicians surveyed believed that AI will not replace their roles in the future.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available