ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Exploring attitudes and acceptance of artificial intelligence in multiple sclerosis from the patient perspective.
Article in PLOS 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into healthcare, particularly in data-intensive chronic diseases that rely on longitudinal monitoring and shared decision-making. Multiple sclerosis is a prototypical example of such care, but real-world benefit will depend on whether people accept AI support in different clinical roles. We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey among 241 people with MS (pwMS) to assess comfort with AI across eight clinical domains and to identify predictors of acceptance. We derived an artificial-intelligence attitudes composite with high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = 0.90). Overall acceptance was moderate (mean 3.39 ± 0.78). Acceptance differed across domains, demonstrating a responsibility gradient: comfort was highest for supportive applications such as chronic management (54.4%) and symptom screening (50.2%), but lower for treatment selection (38.6%) and diagnosis (35.3%; P < 0.001). In multivariable models, frequent general AI use (at least weekly; 30.7%) was the strongest independent predictor of acceptance (P < 0.001). Acceptance also differed by region (Eastern vs Western Germany, P = 0.025), whereas clinical disability was not significantly associated. Older age was associated with lower acceptance of AI-supported management. Most participants viewed AI as a logistical support tool but, assuming equal diagnostic accuracy, 78.8% preferred joint artificial-intelligence-clinician decision-making with clinician final responsibility. These findings indicate that acceptance may be context-dependent and more strongly associated with prior familiarity than with disease severity. Implementation should move beyond technical validation to transparent, clinician-led 'human-in-the-loop' workflows with explicit accountability and staged adoption beginning with low-risk use cases.
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.