Evidence mapPaperPMID 42384671Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2026

Exploring attitudes and acceptance of artificial intelligence in multiple sclerosis from the patient perspective.

Hernan Inojosa, Lars Masanneck, Isabel Voigt, Dirk Schriefer, Nele von Horsten, Judith Wenk, Iva Gasparovic-Curtini, Rocco Haase, Sven G Meuth, Hagen B Huttner and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Hernan InojosaDepartment of Neurology, Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1377-836X
Lars MasanneckDepartment of Neurology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Isabel VoigtDepartment of Neurology, Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Dirk SchrieferDepartment of Neurology, Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7524-7628
Nele von HorstenDepartment of Neurology, Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Judith WenkDepartment of Neurology, Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Iva Gasparovic-CurtiniDepartment of Neurology, Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Rocco HaaseDepartment of Neurology, Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Sven G MeuthDepartment of Neurology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Hagen B HuttnerDepartment of Neurology, Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Stephen GilbertCentre for Tactile Internet with Human-in-the-Loop, Cluster of Excellence, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Marc PawlitzkiDepartment of Neurology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Tjalf ZiemssenDepartment of Neurology, Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8799-8202

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42384671
PMCPMC13322512

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.