Grosek Štefan, Štivić Stjepan, Borovečki Ana, Ćurković Marko, Lajovic Jaro, Marušić Ana, Mijatović Antonija, Miksić Mirjana, Mimica Suzana, Škrlep Eva, Lah Tomulić Kristina, Erčulj Vanja
Neonatology Section, Department of Perinatology, Division of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Centre, Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Institute of Bioethics, Faculty of Theology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana Slovenia.
PLoS One. 2024 Dec 5;19(12):e0310599. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310599. eCollection 2024.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is present in preclinical, clinical and research work, in various branches of medicine. Researchers and teachers at school of medicines may have different ethical attitudes and perspectives about the implementation of AI systems in medicine.
We conducted an online survey among researchers and teachers (RTs) at the departments and institutes of two Slovenian and four Croatian Schools of Medicine.
The sample included 165 and 214 researchers and teachers in Slovenia and Croatia, respectively. The sample of respondents in Slovenia and Croatia was comparable in demographical characteristics. All participants reported high emphasis on the bioethical principles when using artificial intelligence in medicine, its usefulness in certain circumstances, but also caution regarding companies providing AI systems and tools. Slovenian and Croatian researchers and teachers shared three similar perspectives on the use of AI in medicine-complying with highest ethical principles, explainability and transparency and usefulness of AI tools. Higher caution towards use of AI in medicine and effect on autonomy of physicians was expressed in Croatia, while in Slovenia high emphasis was put on understanding how AI works, but also the concerns regarding willingness and time of physicians to learn about AI.
Slovenian and Croatian researchers and teachers share ethical attitudes and perspectives with international researchers and physicians. It is important to facilitate understanding of the implications of AI use in medicine and set a solid evidence-based ground to tackle ethical and legal issues.
人工智能（AI）存在于临床前、临床及研究工作中，涉及医学的各个分支。医学院校的研究人员和教师对于在医学中应用人工智能系统可能持有不同的伦理态度和观点。
我们对两所斯洛文尼亚医学院和四所克罗地亚医学院的各系及研究所的研究人员和教师进行了一项在线调查。
样本分别包括165名斯洛文尼亚研究人员和教师以及214名克罗地亚研究人员和教师。斯洛文尼亚和克罗地亚的受访者样本在人口统计学特征方面具有可比性。所有参与者都表示在医学中使用人工智能时高度重视生物伦理原则，其在某些情况下的有用性，但也对提供人工智能系统和工具的公司持谨慎态度。斯洛文尼亚和克罗地亚的研究人员和教师在医学中使用人工智能方面有三个相似的观点——遵守最高伦理原则、人工智能工具的可解释性和透明度以及有用性。克罗地亚对在医学中使用人工智能及其对医生自主性的影响表达了更高的谨慎态度，而在斯洛文尼亚，高度重视理解人工智能的工作方式，以及对医生学习人工智能的意愿和时间的担忧。
斯洛文尼亚和克罗地亚的研究人员和教师与国际研究人员和医生在伦理态度和观点上有共同之处。促进对医学中使用人工智能的影响的理解，并为解决伦理和法律问题奠定坚实的循证基础非常重要。
