Abstract
Objective To understand better the public perception and comprehension with medical technology such as artificial intelligence and robotic surgery. Additionally, to identify sensitivity to, and comfort with, the use of AI and robotics in medicine a in order to ensure acceptability and quality of counseling and to guide future development.
Subjects and Methods A survey was conducted on a convenience sample of visitors to the Minnesota State Fair (n = 264). The survey investigated participant beliefs on the capabilities of AI and robotics in medicine and their comfort with such technology. 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 in order to compare confidence in human and computer-based diagnosis.
Results The median age of participants was 45 (IQR 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 in the US with most 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 an AI could make medical diagnosis (p = 9.32e-06). Though 55% of respondents (n=145) reported they were uncomfortable with automated robotic surgery the majority of the individuals surveyed (88%) mistakenly believed that partially autonomous surgery was already being performed. Almost all (94%) stated they would be willing to pay for an AI to review their medical imaging, if available.
Conclusion Most participants express confidence in AI providing medical diagnoses, sometimes even over human physicians. Participants generally expressed concern with surgical AI, but mistakenly believe it is already happening. As AI applications make their way into medical practice, health care providers should be cognizant of patient misconceptions and the sensitivity that patients have to how such technology is represented.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01CA225435. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Additional support was provided by the Climb for Kidney Cancer Foundation.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The full survey responses are available to researchers upon reasonable request.
