J Med Internet Res. 2025 Apr 2;27:e59591. doi: 10.2196/59591.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The last decade has witnessed major advances in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies for use in health care. One of the most promising areas of research that has potential clinical utility is the use of AI in pathology to aid cancer diagnosis and management. While the value of using AI to improve the efficiency and accuracy of diagnosis cannot be underestimated, there are challenges in the development and implementation of such technologies. Notably, questions remain about public support for the use of AI to assist in pathological diagnosis and for the use of health care data, including data obtained from tissue samples, to train algorithms.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate public awareness of and attitudes toward AI in pathology research and practice.
METHODS: A nationally representative, cross-sectional, web-based mixed methods survey (N=1518) was conducted to assess the UK public’s awareness of and views on the use of AI in pathology research and practice. Respondents were recruited via Prolific, an online research platform. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be aged >18 years, be UK residents, and have the capacity to express their own opinion. Respondents answered 30 closed-ended questions and 2 open-ended questions. Sociodemographic information and previous experience with cancer were collected. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze quantitative data; qualitative data were analyzed thematically.
RESULTS: Awareness was low, with only 23.19% (352/1518) of the respondents somewhat or moderately aware of AI being developed for use in pathology. Most did not support a diagnosis of cancer (908/1518, 59.82%) or a diagnosis based on biomarkers (694/1518, 45.72%) being made using AI only. However, most (1478/1518, 97.36%) supported diagnoses made by pathologists with AI assistance. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for supporting AI in cancer diagnosis and management was higher for men (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02-1.75). Greater awareness (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10-1.42), greater trust in data security and privacy protocols (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07), and more positive beliefs (aOR 1.27, 95% CI 1.20-1.36) also increased support, whereas identifying more risks reduced the likelihood of support (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.89). In total, 3 main themes emerged from the qualitative data: bringing the public along, the human in the loop, and more hard evidence needed, indicating conditional support for AI in pathology with human decision-making oversight, robust measures for data handling and protection, and evidence for AI benefit and effectiveness.
CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of AI’s potential use in pathology was low, but attitudes were positive, with high but conditional support. Challenges remain, particularly among women, regarding AI use in cancer diagnosis and management. Apprehension persists about the access to and use of health care data by private organizations.
PMID:40173441 | DOI:10.2196/59591
