Physicians’ Ethical Concerns About Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: a Qualitative Study: “the Final Decision Should Rest With a Human”

dc.contributor.author Kahraman, F.
dc.contributor.author Aktas, A.
dc.contributor.author Bayrakceken, S.
dc.contributor.author Çakar, T.
dc.contributor.author Tarcan, H.S.
dc.contributor.author Bayram, B.
dc.contributor.author Ulman, Y.I.
dc.date.accessioned 2025-01-05T18:25:03Z
dc.date.available 2025-01-05T18:25:03Z
dc.date.issued 2024
dc.description.abstract Background/aim: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the capability of computational systems to perform tasks that require human-like cognitive functions, such as reasoning, learning, and decision-making. Unlike human intelligence, AI does not involve sentience or consciousness but focuses on data processing, pattern recognition, and prediction through algorithms and learned experiences. In healthcare including neuroscience, AI is valuable for improving prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and surveillance. Methods: This qualitative study aimed to investigate the acceptability of AI in Medicine (AIIM) and to elucidate any technical and scientific, as well as social and ethical issues involved. Twenty-five doctors from various specialties were carefully interviewed regarding their views, experience, knowledge, and attitude toward AI in healthcare. Results: Content analysis confirmed the key ethical principles involved: confidentiality, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Honesty was the least invoked principle. A thematic analysis established four salient topic areas, i.e., advantages, risks, restrictions, and precautions. Alongside the advantages, there were many limitations and risks. The study revealed a perceived need for precautions to be embedded in healthcare policies to counter the risks discussed. These precautions need to be multi-dimensional. Conclusion: The authors conclude that AI should be rationally guided, function transparently, and produce impartial results. It should assist human healthcare professionals collaboratively. This kind of AI will permit fairer, more innovative healthcare which benefits patients and society whilst preserving human dignity. It can foster accuracy and precision in medical practice and reduce the workload by assisting physicians during clinical tasks. AIIM that functions transparently and respects the public interest can be an inspiring scientific innovation for humanity. Copyright © 2024 Kahraman, Aktas, Bayrakceken, Çakar, Tarcan, Bayram, Durak and Ulman.
dc.description.sponsorship University Research Fund; ABAPKO, (2019/03/06)
dc.identifier.doi 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1428396
dc.identifier.issn 2296-2565
dc.identifier.scopus 2-s2.0-85211587125
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11779/2457
dc.language.iso en
dc.publisher Frontiers Media SA
dc.relation.ispartof Frontiers in Public Health
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject Artificial Intelligence
dc.subject Decision-Making
dc.subject Ethics
dc.subject Healthcare
dc.subject Medicine
dc.subject Qualitative Research
dc.title Physicians’ Ethical Concerns About Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: a Qualitative Study: “the Final Decision Should Rest With a Human”
dc.type Article
dspace.entity.type Publication
gdc.author.id Tuna Çakar / 0000-0001-8594-7399
gdc.author.institutional Çakar, Tuna
gdc.author.scopusid 57517492200
gdc.author.scopusid 59467111200
gdc.author.scopusid 58644537100
gdc.author.scopusid 56329345400
gdc.author.scopusid 59466282200
gdc.author.scopusid 57814866500
gdc.author.scopusid 59466560000
gdc.bip.impulseclass C4
gdc.bip.influenceclass C5
gdc.bip.popularityclass C5
gdc.coar.access metadata only access
gdc.coar.type text::journal::journal article
gdc.description.department Mühendislik Fakültesi, Bilgisayar Mühendisliği Bölümü
gdc.description.publicationcategory Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
gdc.description.scopusquality Q1
gdc.description.volume 12
gdc.description.woscitationindex Science Citation Index Expanded - Social Science Citation Index
gdc.description.wosquality Q1
gdc.identifier.openalex W4404774554
gdc.identifier.pmid 39664534
gdc.identifier.wos WOS:001373838600001
gdc.index.type WoS
gdc.index.type Scopus
gdc.index.type PubMed
gdc.oaire.accesstype GOLD
gdc.oaire.diamondjournal false
gdc.oaire.impulse 6.0
gdc.oaire.influence 2.762213E-9
gdc.oaire.isgreen true
gdc.oaire.keywords Male
gdc.oaire.keywords Adult
gdc.oaire.keywords medicine
gdc.oaire.keywords Attitude of Health Personnel
gdc.oaire.keywords Decision Making
gdc.oaire.keywords healthcare
gdc.oaire.keywords decision-making
gdc.oaire.keywords Middle Aged
gdc.oaire.keywords artificial intelligence
gdc.oaire.keywords ethics
gdc.oaire.keywords Artificial Intelligence
gdc.oaire.keywords Physicians
gdc.oaire.keywords Humans
gdc.oaire.keywords Female
gdc.oaire.keywords Ethics, Medical
gdc.oaire.keywords Public Health
gdc.oaire.keywords Public aspects of medicine
gdc.oaire.keywords RA1-1270
gdc.oaire.keywords qualitative research
gdc.oaire.keywords Qualitative Research
gdc.oaire.popularity 2.9532299E-9
gdc.oaire.publicfunded false
gdc.oaire.sciencefields 0301 basic medicine
gdc.oaire.sciencefields 03 medical and health sciences
gdc.oaire.sciencefields 0302 clinical medicine
gdc.openalex.collaboration International
gdc.openalex.fwci 3.16419622
gdc.openalex.normalizedpercentile 0.85
gdc.openalex.toppercent TOP 10%
gdc.opencitations.count 0
gdc.plumx.mendeley 34
gdc.plumx.pubmedcites 5
gdc.plumx.scopuscites 10
gdc.publishedmonth Kasım
gdc.scopus.citedcount 10
gdc.virtual.author Çakar, Tuna
gdc.wos.citedcount 9
gdc.wos.publishedmonth Kasim
gdc.yokperiod YÖK - 2024-25
relation.isAuthorOfPublication 10f8ce3b-94c2-40f0-9381-0725723768fe
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery 10f8ce3b-94c2-40f0-9381-0725723768fe
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication 05ffa8cd-2a88-4676-8d3b-fc30eba0b7f3
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication 0d54cd31-4133-46d5-b5cc-280b2c077ac3
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication a6e60d5c-b0c7-474a-b49b-284dc710c078
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery 05ffa8cd-2a88-4676-8d3b-fc30eba0b7f3

Files