ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Artificial intelligence and ChatGPT literacy among surgical healthcare professionals: knowledge, attitudes, and perceived clinical utility.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models such as ChatGPT are increasingly applied in surgical education and practice. Successful integration requires healthcare professionals to have adequate literacy, perceived knowledge, and agreement in using these tools, alongside awareness of ethical considerations. Evidence on AI and ChatGPT literacy among surgical trainees and specialists remains limited. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate AI and ChatGPT literacy, perceived knowledge, agreement in clinical application, attitudes, perceived barriers, and perceived clinical utility among surgical medical students, residents, and specialists. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among medical students (clinical years), surgical residents, and consultants/specialists in Jordan to assess AI literacy, ChatGPT literacy, attitudes, and barriers toward AI integration in surgical practice. Stratified random sampling with proportional allocation ensured representative participation across professional strata. A structured online questionnaire, including the Meta-AI Literacy Scale, ChatGPT literacy items, an AI exposure subscale, and attitude measures, was used. Subscale and overall scores were calculated, and internal consistency was high across all measures (Cronbach's Results: Most participants lacked formal AI training (93.2%), but 80.9% had prior ChatGPT experience. AI exposure and perceived literacy scores were highest among students and residents, while consultants reported lower familiarity. Residents showed greater agreement in clinical AI application (MAIL_Use&Apply: 19.5 ± 5.2 vs. 17.4 ± 5.4; Conclusions: AI and ChatGPT literacy varies across professions, with younger trainees reporting relatively higher exposure, agreement, and perceived utility. Ethical awareness is generally high, and attitudes toward AI adoption are positive. Integrating structured AI education and addressing barriers are critical to safe, effective, and ethical adoption of AI in surgical education and 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.