Public Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in Medicine

To understand better the public perception and comprehension of medical technology such as artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic surgery. In addition to this, to identify sensitivity to their use to ensure acceptability and quality of counseling. A survey was conducted on a convenience sample of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of endourology Jg. 34; H. 10; S. 1041
Hauptverfasser: Stai, Bethany, Heller, Nick, McSweeney, Sean, Rickman, Jack, Blake, Paul, Vasdev, Ranveer, Edgerton, Zach, Tejpaul, Resha, Peterson, Matt, Rosenberg, Joel, Kalapara, Arveen, Regmi, Subodh, Papanikolopoulos, Nikolaos, Weight, Christopher
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: United States 01.10.2020
Schlagworte:
ISSN:1557-900X, 1557-900X
Online-Zugang:Weitere Angaben
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Abstract To understand better the public perception and comprehension of medical technology such as artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic surgery. In addition to this, to identify sensitivity to their use to ensure acceptability and quality of counseling. A survey was conducted on a convenience sample of visitors to the MN Minnesota State Fair (  = 264). Participants were randomized to receive one of two similar surveys. In the first, a diagnosis was made by a physician and in the second by an AI application to compare confidence in human and computer-based diagnosis. The median age of participants was 45 (interquartile range 28-59), 58% were female (  = 154) 42% male (  = 110), 69% had completed at least a bachelor's degree, 88% were Caucasian (  = 233) 12% ethnic minorities (  = 31) and were from 12 states, mostly from the Upper Midwest. Participants had nearly equal trust in AI physician diagnoses. However, they were significantly more likely to trust an AI diagnosis of cancer over a doctor's diagnosis when responding to the version of the survey that suggested that an AI could make medical diagnoses (  = 9.32e-06). Though 55% of respondents (  = 145) reported that they were uncomfortable with automated robotic surgery, the majority of the individuals surveyed (88%) mistakenly believed that partially autonomous surgery was already happening. Almost all (94%,  = 249) stated that they would be willing to pay for a review of medical imaging by an AI if available. Most participants express confidence in AI providing medical diagnoses, sometimes even over human physicians. Participants generally express concern with surgical AI, but they mistakenly believe that it is already being performed. As AI applications increase in medical practice, health care providers should be cognizant of the potential amount of misinformation and sensitivity that patients have to how such technology is represented.
AbstractList Objective: To understand better the public perception and comprehension of medical technology such as artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic surgery. In addition to this, to identify sensitivity to their use to ensure acceptability and quality of counseling. Subjects and Methods: A survey was conducted on a convenience sample of visitors to the MN Minnesota State Fair (n = 264). Participants were randomized to receive one of two similar surveys. In the first, a diagnosis was made by a physician and in the second by an AI application to compare confidence in human and computer-based diagnosis. Results: The median age of participants was 45 (interquartile range 28-59), 58% were female (n = 154) vs 42% male (n = 110), 69% had completed at least a bachelor's degree, 88% were Caucasian (n = 233) vs 12% ethnic minorities (n = 31) and were from 12 states, mostly from the Upper Midwest. Participants had nearly equal trust in AI vs physician diagnoses. However, they were significantly more likely to trust an AI diagnosis of cancer over a doctor's diagnosis when responding to the version of the survey that suggested that an AI could make medical diagnoses (p = 9.32e-06). Though 55% of respondents (n = 145) reported that they were uncomfortable with automated robotic surgery, the majority of the individuals surveyed (88%) mistakenly believed that partially autonomous surgery was already happening. Almost all (94%, n = 249) stated that they would be willing to pay for a review of medical imaging by an AI if available. Conclusion: Most participants express confidence in AI providing medical diagnoses, sometimes even over human physicians. Participants generally express concern with surgical AI, but they mistakenly believe that it is already being performed. As AI applications increase in medical practice, health care providers should be cognizant of the potential amount of misinformation and sensitivity that patients have to how such technology is represented.Objective: To understand better the public perception and comprehension of medical technology such as artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic surgery. In addition to this, to identify sensitivity to their use to ensure acceptability and quality of counseling. Subjects and Methods: A survey was conducted on a convenience sample of visitors to the MN Minnesota State Fair (n = 264). Participants were randomized to receive one of two similar surveys. In the first, a diagnosis was made by a physician and in the second by an AI application to compare confidence in human and computer-based diagnosis. Results: The median age of participants was 45 (interquartile range 28-59), 58% were female (n = 154) vs 42% male (n = 110), 69% had completed at least a bachelor's degree, 88% were Caucasian (n = 233) vs 12% ethnic minorities (n = 31) and were from 12 states, mostly from the Upper Midwest. Participants had nearly equal trust in AI vs physician diagnoses. However, they were significantly more likely to trust an AI diagnosis of cancer over a doctor's diagnosis when responding to the version of the survey that suggested that an AI could make medical diagnoses (p = 9.32e-06). Though 55% of respondents (n = 145) reported that they were uncomfortable with automated robotic surgery, the majority of the individuals surveyed (88%) mistakenly believed that partially autonomous surgery was already happening. Almost all (94%, n = 249) stated that they would be willing to pay for a review of medical imaging by an AI if available. Conclusion: Most participants express confidence in AI providing medical diagnoses, sometimes even over human physicians. Participants generally express concern with surgical AI, but they mistakenly believe that it is already being performed. As AI applications increase in medical practice, health care providers should be cognizant of the potential amount of misinformation and sensitivity that patients have to how such technology is represented.
To understand better the public perception and comprehension of medical technology such as artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic surgery. In addition to this, to identify sensitivity to their use to ensure acceptability and quality of counseling. A survey was conducted on a convenience sample of visitors to the MN Minnesota State Fair (  = 264). Participants were randomized to receive one of two similar surveys. In the first, a diagnosis was made by a physician and in the second by an AI application to compare confidence in human and computer-based diagnosis. The median age of participants was 45 (interquartile range 28-59), 58% were female (  = 154) 42% male (  = 110), 69% had completed at least a bachelor's degree, 88% were Caucasian (  = 233) 12% ethnic minorities (  = 31) and were from 12 states, mostly from the Upper Midwest. Participants had nearly equal trust in AI physician diagnoses. However, they were significantly more likely to trust an AI diagnosis of cancer over a doctor's diagnosis when responding to the version of the survey that suggested that an AI could make medical diagnoses (  = 9.32e-06). Though 55% of respondents (  = 145) reported that they were uncomfortable with automated robotic surgery, the majority of the individuals surveyed (88%) mistakenly believed that partially autonomous surgery was already happening. Almost all (94%,  = 249) stated that they would be willing to pay for a review of medical imaging by an AI if available. Most participants express confidence in AI providing medical diagnoses, sometimes even over human physicians. Participants generally express concern with surgical AI, but they mistakenly believe that it is already being performed. As AI applications increase in medical practice, health care providers should be cognizant of the potential amount of misinformation and sensitivity that patients have to how such technology is represented.
Author Heller, Nick
Weight, Christopher
Stai, Bethany
Tejpaul, Resha
McSweeney, Sean
Edgerton, Zach
Regmi, Subodh
Kalapara, Arveen
Peterson, Matt
Rickman, Jack
Papanikolopoulos, Nikolaos
Blake, Paul
Vasdev, Ranveer
Rosenberg, Joel
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Bethany
  surname: Stai
  fullname: Stai, Bethany
  organization: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Nick
  surname: Heller
  fullname: Heller, Nick
  organization: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Sean
  surname: McSweeney
  fullname: McSweeney, Sean
  organization: Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Jack
  surname: Rickman
  fullname: Rickman, Jack
  organization: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Paul
  surname: Blake
  fullname: Blake, Paul
  organization: Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
– sequence: 6
  givenname: Ranveer
  surname: Vasdev
  fullname: Vasdev, Ranveer
  organization: Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
– sequence: 7
  givenname: Zach
  surname: Edgerton
  fullname: Edgerton, Zach
  organization: Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
– sequence: 8
  givenname: Resha
  surname: Tejpaul
  fullname: Tejpaul, Resha
  organization: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
– sequence: 9
  givenname: Matt
  surname: Peterson
  fullname: Peterson, Matt
  organization: Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
– sequence: 10
  givenname: Joel
  surname: Rosenberg
  fullname: Rosenberg, Joel
  organization: Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
– sequence: 11
  givenname: Arveen
  surname: Kalapara
  fullname: Kalapara, Arveen
  organization: Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
– sequence: 12
  givenname: Subodh
  surname: Regmi
  fullname: Regmi, Subodh
  organization: Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
– sequence: 13
  givenname: Nikolaos
  surname: Papanikolopoulos
  fullname: Papanikolopoulos, Nikolaos
  organization: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
– sequence: 14
  givenname: Christopher
  surname: Weight
  fullname: Weight, Christopher
  organization: Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32611217$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNpNj8tLxDAYxIOsuA89epUcvbTm1UeOy-LqwoqLKHgrSfpVIm1Sm_Tgf78VV_A0A_NjmFmimfMOELqmJKWklHfg6pQRRlJCeXGGFjTLikQS8j775-doGcInmZCc8gs05yynlNFigbaHUbfW4AMMBvpovQvYN3g9RNtYY1WLdy5C29oPcAawcjV-8dpHawK2Dj9BPVEOLtF5o9oAVyddobft_evmMdk_P-w2631iBGMxgVIYANAyayDPQSnBSyg0EODKAM-5Nqz8ycuaccGk0VwIKUlhKM2zmrMVuv3t7Qf_NUKIVWeDmfYpB34MFRNUFpRkmZzQmxM66g7qqh9sp4bv6u87OwIn8l0p
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1111_jep_13580
crossref_primary_10_4274_jus_galenos_2024_2024_11_2
crossref_primary_10_14254_1795_6889_2024_20_1_8
crossref_primary_10_2196_26162
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_socscimed_2023_116357
crossref_primary_10_1055_s_0041_1740259
crossref_primary_10_1057_s41599_024_02625_1
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00146_022_01427_w
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijmedinf_2024_105417
crossref_primary_10_3389_feduc_2025_1543746
crossref_primary_10_3390_act14030133
crossref_primary_10_1002_job_70000
crossref_primary_10_1186_s40794_023_00197_7
crossref_primary_10_1080_08870446_2022_2130311
crossref_primary_10_1007_s10815_024_03382_5
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11673_023_10320_0
crossref_primary_10_1093_rheumatology_keae202
crossref_primary_10_1080_13669877_2025_2491089
crossref_primary_10_1177_2327857924131019
crossref_primary_10_3389_frai_2024_1447171
crossref_primary_10_3389_fendo_2023_1197783
crossref_primary_10_2196_32939
crossref_primary_10_1080_10447318_2023_2210890
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00146_025_02237_6
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_chbah_2025_100154
crossref_primary_10_1108_IJOES_08_2023_0190
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_procs_2024_10_311
crossref_primary_10_1007_s10278_025_01629_w
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_amjoto_2024_104410
crossref_primary_10_1177_20552076241247938
crossref_primary_10_25122_jml_2024_0382
crossref_primary_10_31648_mcsc_10343
crossref_primary_10_1093_jamia_ocae257
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_chb_2022_107446
crossref_primary_10_17116_hirurgia202507159
crossref_primary_10_4103_jpbs_jpbs_743_24
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41746_021_00509_1
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_euf_2021_07_010
crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0292944
crossref_primary_10_3389_fsurg_2024_1393898
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11701_025_02649_y
crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0273941
crossref_primary_10_1177_08404704221125368
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijmedinf_2025_106007
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_surge_2024_12_001
crossref_primary_10_1007_s10389_023_02127_5
crossref_primary_10_2174_0118742106339605240918065914
crossref_primary_10_2196_26611
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00146_022_01566_0
crossref_primary_10_1007_s13224_023_01927_9
crossref_primary_10_1109_ACCESS_2025_3565300
crossref_primary_10_1111_hex_70216
crossref_primary_10_3390_children11020240
crossref_primary_10_1007_s40688_025_00554_7
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_diabres_2024_111964
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00192_025_06131_z
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_chb_2021_106878
crossref_primary_10_2196_50853
crossref_primary_10_3390_socsci13050251
crossref_primary_10_2196_70487
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jval_2021_09_004
crossref_primary_10_1080_13678868_2024_2375934
crossref_primary_10_2196_40337
ContentType Journal Article
DBID CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7X8
DOI 10.1089/end.2020.0137
DatabaseName Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE - Academic
MEDLINE
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: 7X8
  name: MEDLINE - Academic
  url: https://search.proquest.com/medline
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod no_fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
EISSN 1557-900X
ExternalDocumentID 32611217
Genre Journal Article
Review
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
GeographicLocations Minnesota
GeographicLocations_xml – name: Minnesota
GrantInformation_xml – fundername: NCI NIH HHS
  grantid: R01 CA225435
GroupedDBID ---
.GJ
0R~
29K
34G
39C
4.4
53G
5GY
5RE
ABBKN
ACGFS
ADBBV
AENEX
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
BNQNF
CAG
CGR
COF
CS3
CUY
CVF
D-I
DU5
EBS
ECM
EIF
EJD
EMOBN
F5P
IAO
IER
IHR
IM4
ITC
MV1
NPM
NQHIM
O9-
P2P
RIG
RML
RMSOB
UE5
7X8
SCNPE
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-e84ceeeb95fe66eaa438e7be0e3ace363bc28eeb98d23429cb3449907c1165d32
IEDL.DBID 7X8
ISICitedReferencesCount 68
ISICitedReferencesURI http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000574548900001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
ISSN 1557-900X
IngestDate Thu Sep 04 19:46:59 EDT 2025
Thu Jan 02 22:55:50 EST 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess false
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 10
Keywords patient counseling
active surveillance
artificial intelligence
robotic surgery
Language English
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c422t-e84ceeeb95fe66eaa438e7be0e3ace363bc28eeb98d23429cb3449907c1165d32
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
OpenAccessLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/7578175
PMID 32611217
PQID 2419710559
PQPubID 23479
ParticipantIDs proquest_miscellaneous_2419710559
pubmed_primary_32611217
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2020-10-00
20201001
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2020-10-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 10
  year: 2020
  text: 2020-10-00
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
PublicationTitle Journal of endourology
PublicationTitleAlternate J Endourol
PublicationYear 2020
SSID ssj0013613
Score 2.5440814
SecondaryResourceType review_article
Snippet To understand better the public perception and comprehension of medical technology such as artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic surgery. In addition to...
Objective: To understand better the public perception and comprehension of medical technology such as artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic surgery. In...
SourceID proquest
pubmed
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
StartPage 1041
SubjectTerms Artificial Intelligence
Female
Humans
Male
Medicine
Minnesota
Public Opinion
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Robotics
Title Public Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in Medicine
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32611217
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2419710559
Volume 34
WOSCitedRecordID wos000574548900001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
hasFullText
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1JS8NAFH6oFfHivtSNEbyOTTNJZuYkIhY9tBRRyC3M8gZ6SWpb_f3OJCntRRC85JKF8OZlvrfl-wDupM2sYbGiDFNHE90XVGNqKXcGtWCJRyFbi03w0UjkuRy3Bbd5O1a53BPrjdpWJtTIex5pJA9qjvJh-kmDalTorrYSGpvQYT6UCV7N87UuQlbLI3vI5FRGUd5ybEZC9rAMNKFxdB8o936PLmuUGez_9_0OYK-NL8lj4xCHsIHlEewM2w76MQyaOh0ZrwZaSOXq6xsuCfK6RtJJVGnJW6WrQOZMJiVZPugEPgbP708vtNVSoCaJ4wVFkXg4RC1Th1mGSiVMINcYIVMGWca0iUU4L2zMPEYZzRKfDEXcBH4ey-JT2CqrEs-BJHUYYaXzqZqHNp-RsPBPlIr6LtXOqS7cLi1UeF8NDQhVYvU1L1Y26sJZY-Zi2pBqFD6M9KFfn1_84e5L2A1r18zUXUHH-S8Vr2HbfC8m89lN7QT-OBoPfwC3HrwH
linkProvider ProQuest
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Public+Perceptions+of+Artificial+Intelligence+and+Robotics+in+Medicine&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+endourology&rft.au=Stai%2C+Bethany&rft.au=Heller%2C+Nick&rft.au=McSweeney%2C+Sean&rft.au=Rickman%2C+Jack&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.eissn=1557-900X&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1041&rft_id=info:doi/10.1089%2Fend.2020.0137&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F32611217&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F32611217&rft.externalDocID=32611217
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1557-900X&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1557-900X&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1557-900X&client=summon