Triangle of Trust in Cancer Care? The physician, the patient, and artificial intelligence chatbot
Abstract
Trust, as a philosophic paradigm, is predominantly interpersonal, between human beings, and is differentiated from reliance. Can a person trust an inhumane amoral agent, such as a large language model artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, to manifest the goodwill and willingness normally required in order for it to be deemed trustworthy? This article explores the relationship between the cancer patient, their physician, and AI chatbot in a proposed tripartite, consultative, personalized approach to shared-care in precision molecular oncology. It examines the nature of trust between human agents and machines. It also contemplates AI-enhanced technical precision in state-of-the-art cancer management, complemented by trustworthy, holistic clinical care by a physician, for each individual patient. " To what extent can the user " trust " GPT-4? " Peter Lee, 1 Microsoft Research 2023.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Patients are capable of trusting machines.
“multiple studies examining chatbots showed that patients are capable of trusting machines [27]”
From Empathic AI for Patient-Centered Cancer Care: A Scoping Review of Patient Navigation, Support, and Clinical Practice (2026) · cites this paper as [27]
Concerns about misinformation, cultural insensitivity, and overreliance on AI-generated outputs were raised across multiple studies.
“However, concerns about misinformation, cultural insensitivity, and overreliance on AI-generated outputs were raised across multiple studies [26-28].”
From Empathic AI for Patient-Centered Cancer Care: A Scoping Review of Patient Navigation, Support, and Clinical Practice (2026) · cites this paper as [27]
Cites
Benefits, Limits, and Risks of GPT-4 as an AI Chatbot for Medicine
Lee, P., Bubeck, S., & Petro, J. (2023) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsr2214184 · Cited by 1,738 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence and Patient-Centered Decision-Making
Bjerring, J. C., & Busch, J. (2021) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-019-00391-6 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Putting ChatGPT’s Medical Advice to the (Turing) Test: Survey Study
Nov, O., Singh, N., & Mann, D. (2023) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/46939 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
White, B. M., Aitken, G. L., Zink, J. A., Kheirkhah Rahimabad, P., Kumsa, F. A., Hashtarkhani, S., Rashid, R., Kheirinejad, S., Girdwood, T., Brett, C. L., et al. (2026) · JMIR Cancer · doi:10.2196/82336 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Furthermore, multiple studies examining chatbots showed that patients are capable of trusting machines [27], including the Rosa chatbot focused on breast cancer gene testing embedded into an app for patients with breast and ovarian cancer [18].”
- Authors
- Turner, J. H.
- Affiliations
- The University of Western Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Turner, J. Harvey
- ORCID
- Turner, J. Harvey
- Venue
- Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-11-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 581-584
- ISSN
- 1084-9785 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-8852
- OpenAlex
- W4386741609
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- trust in AI, AI chatbots, large language models, physician-patient relationship, shared care, GPT-4, cancer care, personalized medicine
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Neoplasms, Physicians, 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
