Comparative analysis of perceptions on artificial intelligence in surgery: a survey study among surgeons and medical students in Ireland.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Doris Braunstein, Haniya Farooq, Marco Paolino, Alice Moynihan, Ronan A Cahill
{"title":"Comparative analysis of perceptions on artificial intelligence in surgery: a survey study among surgeons and medical students in Ireland.","authors":"Doris Braunstein, Haniya Farooq, Marco Paolino, Alice Moynihan, Ronan A Cahill","doi":"10.1007/s11845-025-04079-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial Intelligence (AI) promises to revolutionize healthcare but has been previously characterized by cycles of \"boom\" and \"bust.\" Alongside technological capability, realistic user expectations are essential for appropriate implementation. We surveyed surgeons, surgical trainees, and medical students in Ireland regarding their current perceptions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic survey distributed through professional networks and social media with institutional ethical approval. Statistical and thematic analyses were performed to identify key perspectives.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 94 participants (63% medical students, 18% surgical trainees, 15% consultants, and 4% ancillary surgical roles), 62.7% \"strongly agreed\" that AI could enhance real-time decision-making during surgery. Most (90.5%) believed AI was already being surgically deployed to some extent although only 18% felt it appropriate ever to use for decision-making. While 53.2% were positive about AI's potential to improve surgical outcomes, 72.3% reported no AI training in this context despite 86.2% expressing interest. The primary concerns with AI regarded accuracy and reliability (38.7%) and the lack of evidence of effectiveness (33.7%). Surgical trainees expressed greater concern about AI transparency (47% \"extremely concerned\") compared to consultants (42.9% \"slightly concerned\") and, along with students, declared higher concern regarding liability issues versus consultants (64.3% of whom had \"little to no concern\").</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Students and postgraduates in surgery in Ireland express optimism and high expectations for AI's potential to improve surgery. However, concerns about reliability, evidence, and liability persist with clear caution regarding automated decision-making and insight regarding the need for education that may help align expectations realistically regarding AI evolution.</p>","PeriodicalId":14507,"journal":{"name":"Irish Journal of Medical Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irish Journal of Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-025-04079-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI) promises to revolutionize healthcare but has been previously characterized by cycles of "boom" and "bust." Alongside technological capability, realistic user expectations are essential for appropriate implementation. We surveyed surgeons, surgical trainees, and medical students in Ireland regarding their current perceptions.

Methods: Electronic survey distributed through professional networks and social media with institutional ethical approval. Statistical and thematic analyses were performed to identify key perspectives.

Results: Among 94 participants (63% medical students, 18% surgical trainees, 15% consultants, and 4% ancillary surgical roles), 62.7% "strongly agreed" that AI could enhance real-time decision-making during surgery. Most (90.5%) believed AI was already being surgically deployed to some extent although only 18% felt it appropriate ever to use for decision-making. While 53.2% were positive about AI's potential to improve surgical outcomes, 72.3% reported no AI training in this context despite 86.2% expressing interest. The primary concerns with AI regarded accuracy and reliability (38.7%) and the lack of evidence of effectiveness (33.7%). Surgical trainees expressed greater concern about AI transparency (47% "extremely concerned") compared to consultants (42.9% "slightly concerned") and, along with students, declared higher concern regarding liability issues versus consultants (64.3% of whom had "little to no concern").

Conclusion: Students and postgraduates in surgery in Ireland express optimism and high expectations for AI's potential to improve surgery. However, concerns about reliability, evidence, and liability persist with clear caution regarding automated decision-making and insight regarding the need for education that may help align expectations realistically regarding AI evolution.

对外科手术中人工智能认知的比较分析:爱尔兰外科医生和医学生的调查研究。
背景:人工智能(AI)有望彻底改变医疗保健,但此前一直以“繁荣”和“萧条”的周期为特征。除了技术能力之外,现实的用户期望对于适当的实现也是必不可少的。我们调查了爱尔兰的外科医生、外科实习生和医学生,了解他们目前的看法。方法:经机构伦理批准,通过专业网络和社交媒体进行电子调查。进行了统计和专题分析,以确定关键的观点。结果:在94名参与者中(63%的医学生、18%的外科实习生、15%的顾问和4%的辅助外科角色),62.7%的人“强烈同意”人工智能可以增强手术中的实时决策。大多数人(90.5%)认为人工智能已经在某种程度上被外科手术式地部署,尽管只有18%的人认为人工智能适合用于决策。虽然53.2%的人对人工智能改善手术结果的潜力持积极态度,但72.3%的人表示没有在这方面进行人工智能训练,尽管86.2%的人表示感兴趣。对人工智能的主要关注是准确性和可靠性(38.7%)和缺乏有效性证据(33.7%)。与顾问(42.9%“稍微担心”)相比,外科培训生对人工智能透明度表示更大的担忧(47%“非常担心”),与学生一样,他们对责任问题的担忧程度高于顾问(64.3%的顾问“几乎没有担忧”)。结论:爱尔兰外科专业的学生和研究生对人工智能改善外科手术的潜力表示乐观和高度期望。然而,对可靠性、证据和责任的担忧仍然存在,对自动化决策的谨慎态度和对教育需求的洞察力可能有助于对人工智能进化的现实期望保持一致。
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
Irish Journal of Medical Science
Irish Journal of Medical Science 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
357
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Irish Journal of Medical Science is the official organ of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland. Established in 1832, this quarterly journal is a contribution to medical science and an ideal forum for the younger medical/scientific professional to enter world literature and an ideal launching platform now, as in the past, for many a young research worker. The primary role of both the Academy and IJMS is that of providing a forum for the exchange of scientific information and to promote academic discussion, so essential to scientific progress.
×
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