Turkish medical oncologists' perspectives on integrating artificial intelligence: knowledge, attitudes, and ethical considerations.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Efe Cem Erdat, Filiz Çay Şenler
{"title":"Turkish medical oncologists' perspectives on integrating artificial intelligence: knowledge, attitudes, and ethical considerations.","authors":"Efe Cem Erdat, Filiz Çay Şenler","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01249-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Integrating artificial intelligence (AI), especially large language models (LLM) into oncology has potential benefits, yet medical oncologists' knowledge, attitudes, and ethical concerns remain unclear. Understanding these perspectives is particularly relevant in Türkiye, which has approximately 1340 practicing oncologists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional, online survey was distributed via the Turkish Society of Medical Oncology's channels from October 16 to November 27, 2024. Data on demographics, AI usage, self-assessed knowledge, attitudes, ethical/regulatory perceptions, and educational needs were collected. Quantitative analyses were performed using descriptive statistics and graphics were generated using R v.4.3.1, and qualitative analysis of open-ended responses was conducted manually.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 147 respondents (representing about 11% of Turkish oncologists), 77.5% reported prior AI use, mainly LLMs, yet only 9.5% had formal AI education. While most supported integrating AI into prognosis estimation, research, and decision support, concerns persisted regarding patient-physician relationships and social perception. Ethical reservations centered on patient management, scholarly writing, and research design. Over 79% deemed current regulations inadequate and advocated ethical audits, legal frameworks, and patient consent. Nearly all were willing to receive AI training, reflecting a substantial educational gap.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Turkish medical oncologists exhibit cautious optimism toward AI but highlight critical gaps in training, clear regulations, and ethical safeguards. Addressing these needs could guide responsible AI integration. Limitations include a single-country perspective. Further research is warranted to generalize findings and assess evolving attitudes as AI advances.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not applicable due to cross-sectional survey design.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"82"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12232021/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01249-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Integrating artificial intelligence (AI), especially large language models (LLM) into oncology has potential benefits, yet medical oncologists' knowledge, attitudes, and ethical concerns remain unclear. Understanding these perspectives is particularly relevant in Türkiye, which has approximately 1340 practicing oncologists.

Methods: A cross-sectional, online survey was distributed via the Turkish Society of Medical Oncology's channels from October 16 to November 27, 2024. Data on demographics, AI usage, self-assessed knowledge, attitudes, ethical/regulatory perceptions, and educational needs were collected. Quantitative analyses were performed using descriptive statistics and graphics were generated using R v.4.3.1, and qualitative analysis of open-ended responses was conducted manually.

Results: Of 147 respondents (representing about 11% of Turkish oncologists), 77.5% reported prior AI use, mainly LLMs, yet only 9.5% had formal AI education. While most supported integrating AI into prognosis estimation, research, and decision support, concerns persisted regarding patient-physician relationships and social perception. Ethical reservations centered on patient management, scholarly writing, and research design. Over 79% deemed current regulations inadequate and advocated ethical audits, legal frameworks, and patient consent. Nearly all were willing to receive AI training, reflecting a substantial educational gap.

Conclusions: Turkish medical oncologists exhibit cautious optimism toward AI but highlight critical gaps in training, clear regulations, and ethical safeguards. Addressing these needs could guide responsible AI integration. Limitations include a single-country perspective. Further research is warranted to generalize findings and assess evolving attitudes as AI advances.

Trial registration: Not applicable due to cross-sectional survey design.

土耳其医学肿瘤学家对整合人工智能的看法:知识、态度和伦理考虑。
背景:将人工智能(AI),特别是大型语言模型(LLM)整合到肿瘤学中具有潜在的好处,但医学肿瘤学家的知识、态度和伦理问题仍不清楚。了解这些观点对拥有大约1340名执业肿瘤学家的t rkiye尤其重要。方法:于2024年10月16日至11月27日通过土耳其肿瘤医学学会的渠道进行横断面在线调查。收集了人口统计、人工智能使用、自我评估的知识、态度、道德/监管观念和教育需求方面的数据。采用描述性统计进行定量分析,使用R v.4.3.1生成图形,对开放式回答进行手工定性分析。结果:在147名受访者中(约占土耳其肿瘤学家的11%),77.5%的人报告之前使用过人工智能,主要是法学硕士,但只有9.5%的人接受过正式的人工智能教育。虽然大多数人支持将人工智能整合到预后评估、研究和决策支持中,但对医患关系和社会认知的担忧仍然存在。伦理保留集中在病人管理、学术写作和研究设计上。超过79%的人认为目前的法规不足,并提倡道德审计、法律框架和患者同意。几乎所有人都愿意接受人工智能培训,反映出巨大的教育差距。结论:土耳其医学肿瘤学家对人工智能表现出谨慎的乐观态度,但强调了培训、明确的法规和道德保障方面的关键差距。解决这些需求可以引导负责任的人工智能集成。局限性包括单一国家视角。有必要进行进一步的研究,以概括研究结果,并评估随着人工智能的进步而不断变化的态度。试验注册:由于横断面调查设计,不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信