ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Physician perceptions of artificial intelligence in Northern Italy healthcare: a survey of fears and expectations.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Conditional Acceptance and the Optimism-Knowledge Gap: A Scoping Review of Attitudes and Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare in Italy.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is more and more spreading but despite the clear evidence of benefits related to its implementation, many physicians worry about ethical, legal, employment and professional changes that AI is going to induce. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether and why physicians worry about AI. Methods: This study is a cross-sectional survey addressed to a group of 362 Northern Italy hospitals physicians, both specialists and residents from selected specialties were asked to fill in a 27 multiple-choice online survey submitted by e-mail. The survey aimed to evaluate their opinions and expectations about the impact of AI on clinical, employment and ethical topics. The results were evaluated by the software Stata that enabled to carry out a multivariate analysis with the evaluation of the statistical significance of the results obtained. Results: 176 physicians (48%) answered the survey. The knowledge of the topic "AI" was reported as mild in 47%, poor in 30% and good in 15%; 98% of the responders believe that AI will improve medical activities, in particular by reducing medical errors. The legal problems, the worsening of the relationship with the patients and the deep changes of the medical role have been considered its most negative expected consequences. From an employment point of view, most responders believe that the AI cause the replacement of physicians by other professional figures. The most frequent sensations caused by AI are optimism (34%), worry (30%) and enthusiasm (13%), while anxiety is reported by 9% of the responders. The responders also believe that new dedicated digital technologies and new skills will be needed. Deep changes in the formation of physicians and residents are deemed to be necessary. Gender influences the response given on the effects of AI: women tend to be overall more pessimistic, predicting greater impacts on training, with a substantially negative feeling and with a lower probability of easing litigation. The responses are not correlated with the doctor's specialty of the respondent. The region, which influences the responses on training and feelings, does not influence the response on the effect of AI on litigation. The respondents' origins in some regions of northern Italy and the selection of some medical specialties must be considered limitations of the reported analysis.
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.