ArticleJournal of translational medicine2026
Medicine digital transformation: evidence from Chinese physicians on generative artificial intelligence implementation and challenges.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveArtificial intelligence (AI) technology is profoundly transforming the healthcare domain, with generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and AI chatbots demonstrating significant potential across clinical practice, medical research, and medical education through their robust data generation and personalized interaction capabilities. However, systematic research on how Chinese physicians apply these advanced technologies remains limited, highlighting a critical need to explore real-world application patterns and multidimensional challenges of GenAI technology in medicine from physicians’ perspectives. This study aims to provide empirical evidence for the rational application and responsible governance of GenAI in the Chinese healthcare system, thereby advancing global understanding of AI integration in medicine. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study employed a cross-sectional survey design targeting licensed physicians in China, and data were collected through standardized anonymous electronic questionnaires. To ensure study comprehensiveness and scientific rigor, we systematically reviewed relevant literature to inform questionnaire development. The literature search encompassed studies published between January 2018 and February 2024 indexed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The questionnaire assessed respondents’ demographic characteristics, current applications of AI chatbots in clinical practice, medical research, and medical education, as well as physicians’ attitudes toward AI chatbots and their perceived potential challenges.
resultsResults revealed that physicians who had used AI chatbots generally held positive attitudes, while non-users demonstrated significantly more cautious attitudes. Physicians primarily expressed concerns regarding information reliability in AI chatbot application, compliance with relevant academic ethical standards, and possible impacts on critical thinking development among medical professionals. These findings collectively depict an overall attitude toward GenAI in the Chinese medical context that is both enthusiastic and cautious.
conclusionsThis study represents one of the few empirical investigations on Chinese physicians’ use of GenAI, with both academic and practical significance. The research findings provide valuable insights into the practical application of GenAI in the Chinese healthcare system and offer evidence-based support for technology optimization, application strategy development, and establishment of systematic risk mitigation mechanisms.
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.