ArticleFrontiers in digital health2024
Attitudes and perceptions of Chinese oncologists towards artificial intelligence in healthcare: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- [Artificial intelligence in predicting pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: current advances and challenges].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025Review
- Perceptions and Attitudes of Chinese Oncologists Toward Endorsing AI-Driven Chatbots for Health Information Seeking Among Patients with Cancer: Phenomenological Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Unpacking Young Adults' Fact-Checking Intent on Oral Health Misinformation: Parallel Mediating Roles of Need for Cognition and Perceived Seriousness-A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming healthcare, yet little is known about Chinese oncologists' attitudes towards AI. This study investigated oncologists' knowledge, perceptions, and acceptance of AI in China. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 228 oncologists across China. The survey examined demographics, AI exposure, knowledge and attitudes using 5-point Likert scales, and factors influencing AI adoption. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. Results: Respondents showed moderate understanding of AI concepts (mean 3.39/5), with higher knowledge among younger oncologists. Only 12.8% used ChatGPT. Most (74.13%) agreed AI is beneficial and could innovate healthcare, 52.19% respondents expressed trust in AI technology. Acceptance was cautiously optimistic (mean 3.57/5). Younger respondents (∼30) show significantly higher trust ( Conclusions: Chinese oncologists are open to healthcare AI but remain prudently optimistic given limitations. Targeted education, especially for older oncologists, can facilitate AI implementation. AI is largely welcomed for its potential to augment human roles in enhancing efficiency, quality, safety, and innovations in oncology practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.