Cited by 65Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Patients’ Trust in Artificial Intelligence–based Decision-making for Localized Prostate Cancer: Results from a Prospective Trial

Rodler, Severin, Kopliku, Rega, Ulrich, Daniel, Kaltenhauser, Annika, Casuscelli, Jozefina, Eismann, Lennert, Waidelich, Raphaela, Buchner, Alexander +4 more·2024·European Urology Focus

Abstract

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and improve treatment outcomes. However, AI integration into clinical workflows and patient perspectives remain unclear.Objective To determine patients' trust in AI and their perception of urologists relying on AI, and future diagnostic and therapeutic AI applications for patients.Design, setting, and participants A prospective trial was conducted involving patients who received diagnostic or therapeutic interventions for prostate cancer (PC).Intervention Patients were asked to complete a survey before magnetic resonance imaging, prostate biopsy, or radical prostatectomy.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary outcome was patient trust in AI. Secondary outcomes were the choice of AI in treatment settings and traits attributed to AI and urologists.Results and limitations Data for 466 patients were analyzed. The cumulative affinity for technology was positively correlated with trust in AI (correlation coefficient 0.094; p = 0.04), whereas patient age, level of education, and subjective perception of illness were not (p > 0.05). The mean score (± standard deviation) for trust in capability was higher for physicians than for AI for responding in an individualized way when communicating a diagnosis (4.51 ± 0.76 vs 3.38 ± 1.07; mean difference [MD] 1.130, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.010-1.250; t 924 = 18.52, p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 1.040) and for explaining information in an understandable way (4.57 ± vs 3.18 ± 1.09; MD 1.392, 95% CI 1.275-1.509; t 921 = 27.27, p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 1.216). Patients stated that they had higher trust in a diagnosis made by AI controlled by a physician versus AI not controlled by a physician (4.31 ± 0.88 vs 1.75 ± 0.93; MD 2.561, 95% CI 2.444-2.678; t 925 = 42.89, p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 2.818). AI-assisted physicians (66.74%) were preferred over physicians alone (29.61%), physicians controlled by AI (2.36%), and AI alone (0.64%) for treatment in the current clinical scenario.Conclusions Trust in future diagnostic and therapeutic AI-based treatment relies on optimal integration with urologists as the human-machine interface to leverage human and AI capabilities.Patient summary Artificial intelligence (AI) will play a role in diagnostic decisions in prostate cancer in the future. At present, patients prefer AI-assisted urologists over urologists alone, AI alone, and AI-controlled urologists. Specific traits of AI and urologists could be used to optimize diagnosis and treatment for patients with prostate cancer.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.euf.2023.10.020

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • While there are initial reports of patient engagement and satisfaction with AI being used in healthcare settings, the human component is still a crucial part of the process.

    “While there are initial reports of patient engagement and satisfaction with AI being used in healthcare settings, the human component is still a crucial part of the process [127,128,129].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rodler, S., Kopliku, R., Ulrich, D., Kaltenhauser, A., Casuscelli, J., Eismann, L., Waidelich, R., Buchner, A., Butz, A., Cacciamani, G. E., Stief, C. G., & Westhofen, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • LMU Klinikum (DE)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Corresponding author
Rodler, Severin
Venue
European Urology Focus
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-07
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
654-661
ISSN
2405-4569 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388115165
Cited by
65
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 23
FWCI
2.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Urology Focus (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
artificial intelligence, patient trust, localized prostate cancer, AI-assisted diagnosis, prostate biopsy, radical prostatectomy, magnetic resonance imaging, physician-AI collaboration, patient preferences, patient-physician communication, technology affinity, shared decision-making, patient satisfaction, patient-reported outcomes, urology, clinical implementation of AI
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Aged, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Prospective Studies, Prostatectomy, Prostatic Neoplasms, Trust

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review