Berkstresser Amanda M, Hanchard Suzanna E Ledgister, Iacaboni Daniela, McMilian Kevin, Duong Dat, Solomon Benjamin D, Waikel Rebekah L
Genetic Counseling Program, School of Health & Natural Sciences, Bay Path University, Longmeadow, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Medical Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
medRxiv. 2025 May 2:2025.04.30.25326673. doi: 10.1101/2025.04.30.25326673.
PURPOSE: Artificial intelligence (AI) applications for clinical genetics hold the potential to improve patient care through supporting diagnostics and management as well as automating administrative tasks, thus enhancing and potentially enabling clinician/patient interactions. While the introduction of AI into clinical genetics is increasing, there remain unclear questions about risks and benefits, and the readiness of the workforce. METHODS: To assess the current clinical genetics workforce's use, knowledge, and attitudes toward available medical AI applications, we conducted a survey involving 215 US-based genetics clinicians and trainees. RESULTS: Over half (51.2%) of participants report little to no knowledge of AI in clinical genetics and 64.3% reported no formal training in AI applications. Formal training directly correlated with self-reported knowledge of AI in clinical genetics, with 69.3% of respondents with formal training reporting intermediate to extensive knowledge of AI vs. 37.5% without formal training. Most participants reported that they lacked sufficient knowledge of clinical AI (83.4%) and agreed that there should be more education in this area (97.6%) and would take a course if offered (89.3%). The majority (51.6%) of clinician participants said they never used AI applications in the clinic. However, after a tutorial describing clinical AI applications, 75.8% reported some use of AI applications in the clinic. When asked specifically about clinical AI application usage, the majority of clinician participants used facial diagnostic applications (54.9%) and AI-generated genomic testing results (62.1%), whereas other applications such as chatbots, large language models (LLMs), pedigree or medical summary generators, and risk assessment were only used by a fraction of the clinicians, ranging from 11.1 to 12.5%. Nearly all participants (94.6%) reported clinical genetics professionals as being overburdened. CONCLUSION: Further clinician education is both desired and needed to optimally utilize clinical AI applications with the potential to enhance patient care and alleviate the current strain on genetics clinics.
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2024-4-24
JMIR Med Inform. 2024-5-10
JAMA Netw Open. 2025-3-3
Genet Med Open. 2024-1-28
JAMA Netw Open. 2024-10-1
Eur J Radiol. 2024-8
EClinicalMedicine. 2024-5-27
Commun Med (Lond). 2023-10-10