Bignami Elena Giovanna, Russo Michele, Bellini Valentina, Berchialla Paola, Cammarota Gianmaria, Cascella Marco, Compagnone Christian, Sanfilippo Filippo, Maggiore Salvatore Maurizio, Montomoli Jonathan, Vetrugno Luigi, Boero Enrico, Cortegiani Andrea, Giarratano Antonino, Pelosi Paolo, De Robertis Edoardo
From the Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine Division, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma (EGB, MR, VB, CC), Center for Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Torino, Turin (PB), Section of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Intensive Care, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia (GC, EdeR), Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS, Fondazione Pascale, Naples (MC), Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria 'Policlinico-San Marco', Catania (FS), University Department of Innovative Technologies in Medicine and Dentistry, Gabriele d'Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti (SMM), Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, and Emergency, SS Annunziata Hospital, Chieti (SMM), Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Infermi Hospital, AUSL Romagna, Rimini (JM), Department of Medical, Oral, and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti (LV), Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, San Giovanni Bosco Hospital, Turin (EB), Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Science (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Palermo (AC, AG), Department of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency, Policlinico Paolo Giaccone, Palermo (AC, AG), Anesthesia and Intensive Care, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology and Neurosciences, Genoa, Italy (PP) and Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy (PP).
Eur J Anaesthesiol Intensive Care. 2023 Aug 10;2(5):e0031. doi: 10.1097/EA9.0000000000000031. eCollection 2023 Oct.
The potential role of artificial intelligence in enhancing human life and medical practice is under investigation but the knowledge of the topic among healthcare providers is under-investigated.
To investigate knowledge of artificial intelligence in physicians working in the field of anaesthesiology, intensive care, and pain medicine. As secondary outcomes, we investigated the main concerns on the implementation of artificial intelligence.
Online survey.
Anaesthesiology, intensive care and pain medicine.
We invited clinicians specialised in anaesthesia, resuscitation, intensive care and pain medicine who were active members of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC).
Online survey from 28 June 2022 to 29 October 2022.
Primary outcome was to investigate knowledge of artificial intelligence and telemedicine of participants.
A total of 4465 e-mails were sent and 220 specialists, age 46.5 ± 10.2; 128 men (58.2%) responded to the survey. In general, some knowledge of artificial intelligence and machine learning was reported by 207 of 220 (94.1%) and 180 of 220 (81.8%) members, respectively. In anaesthesiology, 168 of 220 (76.4%) and 151 of 220 (68.6%) have heard of artificial intelligence and machine learning. In intensive care, 154 of 220 (70.0%) and 133 of 220 (60.5%) had heard of artificial intelligence and machine learning, while these figures were much lower in pain medicine [artificial intelligence: only 70/220 (31.8%) and machine learning 67/220 (30.5%)]. The main barriers to implementing these tools in clinical practice were: lack of knowledge of algorithms leading to the results; few validation studies available and not enough knowledge of artificial intelligence. Knowledge of telemedicine was reported in 212 of 220 (96.4%) members.
Most anaesthesiologists are aware of artificial intelligence and machine learning. General thinking about the application of artificial intelligence in anaesthesiology, intensive care and pain management was positive overall, with most participants not considering this tool as a threat to their profession.
人工智能在改善人类生活和医疗实践中的潜在作用正在研究中，但医疗服务提供者对该主题的了解情况尚未得到充分调查。
调查麻醉学、重症监护和疼痛医学领域医生对人工智能的了解情况。作为次要结果，我们调查了人工智能实施方面的主要担忧。
在线调查。
麻醉学、重症监护和疼痛医学。
我们邀请了专门从事麻醉、复苏、重症监护和疼痛医学的临床医生，他们是欧洲麻醉学和重症监护学会（ESAIC）的活跃成员。
2022年6月28日至2022年10月29日进行在线调查。
主要结果是调查参与者对人工智能和远程医疗的了解情况。
共发送了4465封电子邮件，220名专家（年龄46.5±10.2岁；128名男性，占58.2%）回复了调查。总体而言，220名成员中有207名（94.1%）和180名（81.8%）分别报告对人工智能和机器学习有一定了解。在麻醉学领域，220名中有168名（76.4%）和151名（68.6%）听说过人工智能和机器学习。在重症监护领域，220名中有154名（70.0%）和133名（60.5%）听说过人工智能和机器学习，而在疼痛医学领域这些数字要低得多[人工智能：仅70/220（31.8%），机器学习67/220（30.5%）]。在临床实践中实施这些工具的主要障碍是：缺乏对算法如何得出结果的了解；可用的验证研究很少，以及对人工智能的了解不足。220名成员中有212名（96.4%）报告了解远程医疗。
大多数麻醉医生了解人工智能和机器学习。总体而言，对人工智能在麻醉学、重症监护和疼痛管理中的应用的总体看法是积极的，大多数参与者不认为这个工具会对他们的职业构成威胁。
