Researchers, Clinicians Believe In AI's Potential, But Transparency Is A Must: Report

Artificial intelligence is expected to transform research and healthcare, yet adoption of AI for work use remains low, as does use of AI platforms like Bard and ChatGPT, according to a new study by Elsevier, a provider of scientific information and data analytics.

The “Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI” report, based on a survey of 3,000 researchers and clinicians across 123 countries, showed that both groups see AI having the most potential in accelerating knowledge discovery, increasing work quality and saving costs. However, to maximise the use of AI, both groups want assurances of quality content, trust and transparency before integrating AI tools into their daily work.

The majority of clinicians and researchers familiar with AI said they believe in AI's potential to help them and their organisations in their work:

• 94% researchers and 96% clinicians think AI will help accelerate knowledge discovery.

• 92% and 96% of the two groups, respectively, think it will help increase the volume of scholarly and medical research.

• 92% of both groups foresee cost savings for institutions and businesses.

• 87% think it will help increase work quality overall.

• 85% believe AI will free up time to focus on higher value projects.

Both groups were concerned that further rise in misinformation could impact critical decisions:

• 95% researchers and 93% clinicians believe AI will be used for misinformation.

• 86% and 85%, respectively, believe AI could cause critical errors, while a similar ratio expressed concern about AI leading to weakened critical thinking.

• 81% researchers worry AI will erode critical thinking, with 82% doctors concerned that physicians will become over-reliant on AI to make clinical decisions.

If AI tools are backed by trusted content, quality controls and responsible AI principles, 89% of researchers who think AI can benefit their work would use it to generate a synthesis of articles, while 94% of clinicians would employ the technology to assess symptoms and identify conditions or diseases.

Around 81% of researchers and clinicians expect to be told about their tools’ dependency on generative AI, and 71% expect the results of generative AI-dependent tools to be based on high-quality trusted sources only.

Additionally, 78% of researchers and 80% of clinicians expect to be informed if the peer-review recommendations they receive about manuscripts utilise generative AI.

Findings revealed different attitudes among researchers and clinicians in India, the US and China:

• Indian researchers and clinicians were 100% likely to use a trusted AI assistant to review prior studies, identify gaps in knowledge and generate a new research hypothesis for testing. This percentage was 96% for China and 84% for the US.

• Of those familiar with AI, over half (54%) have actively used AI with just under a third (31%) for a specific work-related purpose. This is higher in China (39%) and lower in India (22%).

• Around 67% of those who have not used AI expect to in two to five years, with China (83%) and India (79%) outpacing the U.S. (53%).

• Indian (41%) and Chinese (46%) respondents were more likely to feel positive about the future impact of AI on work, compared to those in the U.S. (28%).

-With inputs from PTI.