Henckert David, Malorgio Amos, Schweiger Giovanna, Raimann Florian J, Piekarski Florian, Zacharowski Kai, Hottenrott Sebastian, Meybohm Patrick, Tscholl David W, Spahn Donat R, Roche Tadzio R
Institute of Anaesthesiology, University and University Hospital of Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Frankfurt University Hospital, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2023 Mar 7;12(6):2096. doi: 10.3390/jcm12062096.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is predicted to play an increasingly important role in perioperative medicine in the very near future. However, little is known about what anesthesiologists know and think about AI in this context. This is important because the successful introduction of new technologies depends on the understanding and cooperation of end users. We sought to investigate how much anesthesiologists know about AI and what they think about the introduction of AI-based technologies into the clinical setting. In order to better understand what anesthesiologists think of AI, we recruited 21 anesthesiologists from 2 university hospitals for face-to-face structured interviews. The interview transcripts were subdivided sentence-by-sentence into discrete statements, and statements were then grouped into key themes. Subsequently, a survey of closed questions based on these themes was sent to 70 anesthesiologists from 3 university hospitals for rating. In the interviews, the base level of knowledge of AI was good at 86 of 90 statements (96%), although awareness of the potential applications of AI in anesthesia was poor at only 7 of 42 statements (17%). Regarding the implementation of AI in anesthesia, statements were split roughly evenly between pros (46 of 105, 44%) and cons (59 of 105, 56%). Interviewees considered that AI could usefully be used in diverse tasks such as risk stratification, the prediction of vital sign changes, or as a treatment guide. The validity of these themes was probed in a follow-up survey of 70 anesthesiologists with a response rate of 70%, which confirmed an overall positive view of AI in this group. Anesthesiologists hold a range of opinions, both positive and negative, regarding the application of AI in their field of work. Survey-based studies do not always uncover the full breadth of nuance of opinion amongst clinicians. Engagement with specific concerns, both technical and ethical, will prove important as this technology moves from research to the clinic.
预计在不久的将来，人工智能（AI）将在围手术期医学中发挥越来越重要的作用。然而，对于麻醉医生在这种情况下对人工智能的了解和看法却知之甚少。这一点很重要，因为新技术的成功引入取决于终端用户的理解与合作。我们试图调查麻醉医生对人工智能了解多少，以及他们对将基于人工智能的技术引入临床环境的看法。为了更好地了解麻醉医生对人工智能的看法，我们从两家大学医院招募了21名麻醉医生进行面对面的结构化访谈。访谈记录逐句细分为离散的陈述，然后将陈述归纳为关键主题。随后，基于这些主题的封闭式问题调查被发送给来自三家大学医院的70名麻醉医生进行评分。在访谈中，90条陈述中有86条（96%）对人工智能的基础知识掌握良好，尽管在42条陈述中只有7条（17%）对人工智能在麻醉中的潜在应用有较好的认识。关于人工智能在麻醉中的应用，支持（105条中的46条，44%）和反对（105条中的59条，56%）的陈述大致相当。受访者认为人工智能可有效用于多种任务，如风险分层、生命体征变化预测或作为治疗指南。在对70名麻醉医生的后续调查中探讨了这些主题的有效性，回复率为70%，这证实了该群体对人工智能总体上持积极看法。麻醉医生对人工智能在其工作领域的应用持有一系列积极和消极的观点。基于调查的研究并不总能揭示临床医生意见的全部细微差别。随着这项技术从研究转向临床，解决技术和伦理等具体问题将被证明是很重要的。
