CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 27Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

Opinion research among Russian Physicians on the application of technologies using artificial intelligence in the field of medicine and health care

Open access
Orlova, I.A., Akopyan, Zh.A., Plisyuk, A.G., Tarasova, E.V., Borisov, E.N., Dolgushin, G.O., Khvatova, E.I., Grigoryan, M.A. +2 more·2023·BMC Health Services Research
DOI 10.1186/s12913-023-09493-6PMC PMC10339534
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: To date, no opinion surveys has been conducted among Russian physicians to study their awareness about artificial intelligence. With a survey, we aimed to evaluate the attitudes of stakeholders to the usage of technologies employing AI in the field of medicine and healthcare and identify challenges and perspectives to introducing AI. Methods: We conducted a 12-question online survey using Google Forms. The survey consisted of questions related to the recognition of AI and attitudes towards it, the direction of development of AI in medicine and the possible risks of using AI in medicine. Results: 301 doctors took part in the survey. 107 (35.6%) responded that they are familiar with AI. The vast majority of participants considered AI useful in the medical field (85%). The advantage of AI was associated with the ability to analyze huge volumes of clinically relevant data in real time (79%). Respondents highlighted areas where AI would be most useful—organizational optimization (74%), biopharmaceutical research (67%), and disease diagnosis (52%). Among the possible problems when using AI, they noted the lack of flexibility and limited application on controversial issues (64% and 60% of respondents). 56% believe that AI decision making will be difficult if inadequate information is presented for analysis. A third of doctors fear that specialists with little experience took part in the development of AI, and 89% of respondents believe that doctors should participate in the development of AI for medicine and healthcare. Only 20 participants (6.6%) responded that they agree that AI can replace them at work. At the same time, 76% of respondents believe that in the future, doctors using AI will replace those who do not. Conclusions: Russian doctors are for AI in medicine. Most of the respondents believe that AI will not replace them in the future and will become a useful tool. First of all, for optimizing organizational processes, research and diagnostics of diseases. Trial registration: This study was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of the Lomonosov Moscow State University Medical Research and Education Center (IRB00010587).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12913-023-09493-6

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Professionals believe that AI would increase their efficiency in managing medical information and knowledge, by being granted quick access to vast amounts of knowledge with the ability to scan and summarize relevant information effectively, or being able to handle big-data records in real-time.

    “Furthermore, the professionals believe that AI would increase their efficiency in managing medical information and knowledge, by being granted quick access to vast amounts of knowledge with the ability to scan and summarize relevant information effectively with the help of AI [29, 30, 46–49] or being able to handle big-data records in real-time [50, 51].”

    From Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on artificial intelligence in patient care: a systematic review of hindering and facilitating factors on different levels (2025) · cites this paper as [50]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 27

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. [1]Hastie TT Friedman J Tibshirani R The Elements of Statistical Learning 2009 New York Springer Science & Business Media
  2. [3]Kononenko I Machine learning for medical diagnosis: history, state of the art and perspective Artif Intell Med 2001 23 1 89 109 10.1016/S0933-3657(01)00077-X 11470218 · DOI
  3. [4]Pyo S Lee J Cha M Jang H Predictability of machine learning techniques to forecast the trends of market index prices: hypothesis testing for the Korean stock markets PLoS One 2017 12 11 e0188107 10.1371/journal.pone.0188107 29136004 PMC5685607 · DOI
  4. [5]Miller DD Brown EW Artificial intelligence in medical practice: the question to the answer? Am J Med 2018 131 2 129 133 10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.10.035 29126825 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [6]Patel VL Shortliffe EH Stefanelli M Szolovits P Berthold MR Bellazzi R The coming of age of artificial intelligence in medicine Artif Intell Med 2009 46 1 5 17 10.1016/j.artmed.2008.07.017 18790621 PMC2752210 · DOI
  6. [7]Ohno-Machado L Research on machine learning issues in biomedical informatics modeling J Biomed Inform 2004 37 4 221 223 10.1016/j.jbi.2004.07.004 15465475 · DOI
  7. [8]Nemati S Holder A Razmi F Stanley MD Clifford GD Buchman TG An interpretable machine learning model for accurate prediction of sepsis in the ICU Crit Care Med 2018 46 4 547 553 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002936 29286945 PMC5851825 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [9]Dreyer KJ, Geis JR. When machines think: radiology’s next frontier. Radiology. 2017;285(3):713–8. 29155639
  9. [10]Korfiatis P Kline TL Lachance DH Parney IF Buckner JC Erickson BJ Residual deep convolutional neural network predicts MGMT methylation status J Digit Imaging 2017 30 5 622 628 10.1007/s10278-017-0009-z 28785873 PMC5603430 · DOI
  10. [11]Rios VE Parmar C Liu Y Coroller TP Cruz G Stringfield O Somatic mutations drive distinct imaging phenotypes in lung cancer Cancer Res 2017 77 14 3922 3930 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0122 28566328 PMC5528160 · DOI
  11. [12]Mordang J Gubern-Mérida A Bria A Tortorella F den Heeten HG Karssemeijer N Improving computer-aided detection assistance in breast cancer screening by removal of obviously false-positive findings Med Phys 2017 44 4 1390 1401 10.1002/mp.12152 28182277 · DOI
  12. [13]Liu J Hoffman J Zhao J Yao J Lu L Kim L Mediastinal lymph node detection and station mapping on chest CT using spatial priors and random forest Med Phys 2016 43 7 4362 10.1118/1.4954009 27370151 PMC4920813 · DOI
  13. [15]Diprose W Buist N Artificial intelligence in medicine: humans need not apply? N Z Med J 2016 129 1434 73 76 27349266
  14. [16]Oh S Kim JH Choi S-W Lee HJ Hong J Kwon SH Physician Confidence in Artificial Intelligence: An Online Mobile Survey Journal of Medical Internet Research 2019 21 e12422 10.2196/12422 30907742 PMC6452288 · DOI · Paper page
  15. [17]Scheetz J Rothschild P McGuinness M A survey of clinicians on the use of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology, dermatology, radiology and radiation oncology Sci Rep 2021 11 5193 10.1038/s41598-021-84698-5 33664367 PMC7933437 · DOI
  16. [18]Ketan Paranjape, MS, MBA, Michiel Schinkel, MD, Richard D Hammer, MD, Bo Schouten, MSc, R S Nannan Panday, MD, PhD, Paul W G Elbers, MD, PhD, Mark H H Kramer, MD, Prabath Nanayakkara, MD, PhD, The Value of Artificial Intelligence in Laboratory Medicine: Current Opinions and Barriers to Implementation, American Journal of Clinical Pathology, Volume 155, Issue 6, June 2021, Pages 823–831, 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa170. PMC8130876 33313667 · DOI
  17. [19]Blease C Locher C Leon-Carlyle M Doraiswamy M Artificial intelligence and the future of psychiatry: Qualitative findings from a global physician survey DIGITAL HEALTH 2020 10.1177/2055207620968355 33194219 PMC7597571 · DOI · Paper page
  18. [20]Orly Ardon, PhD, MBA, Robert L Schmidt, MD, PhD, MBA, Clinical Laboratory Employees’ Attitudes Toward Artificial Intelligence, Laboratory Medicine, Volume 51, Issue 6, November 2020, Pages 649–654, 10.1093/labmed/lmaa023. 32417927 · DOI
  19. [21]Hugo Layard Horsfall, Paolo Palmisciano, Danyal Z. Khan, William Muirhead, Chan Hee Koh, Danail Stoyanov, Hani J. Marcus, Attitudes of the Surgical Team Toward Artificial Intelligence in Neurosurgery: International 2-Stage Cross-Sectional Survey, World Neurosurgery, Volume 146, 2021, Pages e724-e730, 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.10.171 PMC7910281 33248306 · DOI · Paper page
  20. [22]Blease C, Bernstein MH, Gaab J, Kaptchuk TJ, Kossowsky J, Mandl KD, et al. (2018) Computerization and the future of primary care: A survey of general practitioners in the UK. PLoS ONE 13(12): e0207418. 10.1371/journal.pone.0207418. PMC6291067 30540791 · DOI
  21. [23]Abdullah R, Fakieh B Health Care Employees’ Perceptions of the Use of Artificial Intelligence Applications: Survey Study J Med Internet Res 2020;22(5):e17620: 10.2196/17620. PMC7256754 32406857 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [25]Huisman M, Ranschaert E, Parker W, et al. An international survey on AI in radiology in 1041 radiologists and radiology residents part 2: expectations, hurdles to implementation, and education. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(11):8797–806. 10.1007/s00330-021-07782-426. (PintodosSantosD,GieseD,BrodehlS,etal.Medicalstudents'attitudetowardsartificialintelligence:amulticentresurvey.EuropeanRadiology,(2019),1640-1646,29(4)). PMC8111651 33974148 · DOI
  23. [26]Choudhury A, Asan O. Impact of accountability, training, and human factors on the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare: Exploring the perceptions of healthcare practitioners in the US. Impact of accountability, training, and human factors on the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare: Exploring the perceptions of healthcare practitioners in the US. Human Factors in Healthcare. 2022;2:100021. 10.1016/j.hfh.2022.100021. · DOI
  24. [27]Choudhury A, Asan O, Medow J. Effect of risk, expectancy, and trust on clinicians’ intent to use an artificial intelligence system -- Blood Utilization Calculator. Applied Ergonomics, (2022), 103708, 101: 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103708. 35149301 · DOI

Authors
Orlova, I. A., Akopyan, Z. A., Plisyuk, A. G., Tarasova, E. V., Borisov, E. N., Dolgushin, G. O., Khvatova, E. I., Grigoryan, M. A., Gabbasova, L. A., & Kamalov, A. A.
Affiliations
Lomonosov Moscow State University (RU)
Corresponding author
Tarasova, E.V.
ORCID
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-07-13
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
749-749
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12913-023-09493-6
PMC
PMC10339534
OpenAlex
W4384264197
Cited by
27
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Keywords
artificial intelligence in healthcare, physician attitudes, AI adoption in healthcare, AI risks, AI decision-making, disease diagnosis, biopharmaceutical research, Russian physicians
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Attitude, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Physicians, Russia

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