Rodler S, Kopliku R, Ulrich D, Kaltenhauser A, Casuscelli J, Eismann L, Waidelich R, Buchner A, Butz A, Cacciamani GE, Stief CG, Westhofen T. Patients' Trust in Artificial Intelligence-based Decision-making for Localized Prostate Cancer: Results from a Prospective Trial.
Eur Urol Focus 2023:S2405-4569(23)00237-7. [PMID:
37923632 DOI:
10.1016/j.euf.2023.10.020]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2023] [Revised: 10/04/2023] [Accepted: 10/21/2023] [Indexed: 11/07/2023]
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; t924 = 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; t921 = 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; t925 = 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.
Collapse