Back

Changes in public perception of AI in healthcare after exposure to ChatGPT

Isaksen, A. A.; Schaarup, J. R.; Bjerg, L.; Hulman, A.

2025-01-25 public and global health
10.1101/2025.01.23.25321048 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is expected to become an integral part of healthcare services, and the widespread adoption of AI tools in all areas of life is making AI accessible to the general public. Public perception of the benefits and risks of AI in healthcare is key to large-scale acceptance and implementation, and is increasingly influenced by first-hand experiences of AI. The aim of this study was to assess how exposure to ChatGPT changed public perception of AI in healthcare. MethodsWe used baseline and follow-up data from 5,899 survey participants, who reported their perception of AI in 2022 and 2024, and ChatGPT use in 2024. Administrative and healthcare data from nationwide Danish registers was used for weighting and adjustment. Multinomial multivariate logistic regression was used to model how exposure to ChatGPT use affected changes in perception of AI. ResultsAt baseline (before ChatGPTs launch) 2,236 individuals (37%) were unsure of the benefits and risks of AI in healthcare, 2,384 (40%) perceived net benefits, 1,083 (18%) perceived benefits and risks as equal, and 196 (3.3%) perceived net risks. At follow-up, 1,195 individuals (20%) had been exposed to ChatGPT use, which was associated with higher odds of changing perception of AI to benefits (OR 3.21 [95% CI: 2.34-4.40]) among individuals who were unsure at baseline, and lower odds of changing to uncertainty from more defined baseline perceptions (from benefits (OR 0.32 [0.24-0.42]), equal (OR 0.47 [0.32-0.69]) and risks (OR 0.27 [0.08-0.98])). ConclusionExposure to ChatGPT was associated with a change towards positive perception of benefits and risks of AI in healthcare among individuals who were uncertain prior to exposure, and individuals with more defined perceptions of AI were less likely to become uncertain after exposure to ChatGPT.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.