Artificial intelligence in clinical genetics: current practice and attitudes among the clinical genetics workforce
Berkstresser, A.; Ledgister Hanchard, S. E.; Iacoboni, D.; McMilian, K.; Duong, D.; Solomon, B. D.; Waikel, R. L.
Show abstract
PurposeArtificial 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. MethodsTo assess the current clinical genetics workforces use, knowledge, and attitudes toward available medical AI applications, we conducted a survey involving 215 US-based genetics clinicians and trainees. ResultsOver 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. ConclusionFurther 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.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and evaluation of a novel educational program for providers on the use of polygenic risk scores 95%
- Using Coincidence Analysis to Identify Causal Chains of Factors Associated with Implementation and Optimization of Lynch Syndrome Tumor Screening Across Multiple Health care Systems 93%
- GUIA: a digital platform to facilitate result disclosure in genetic counseling 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Defining the Critical Educational Components of Informed Consent for Genetic Testing: Views of US-Based Genetic Counselors and Medical Geneticists 98%
- Benefits and barriers to implementing precision preventive care: results of a national physician survey 93%
- Analysis of large-language model versus human performance for genetics questions 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Pooled Electronic Consultation Program to Improve Access to Genetics Specialists 96%
- Evaluation of DNA-poli: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial to assess a digital platform for family cascade genetic testing and predictive genetic counselling 89%
- Early Diagnosis of Vascular Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Through AI-Powered Facial Analysis: Results from the Montalcino Aortic Consortium 86%
Similar papers in this journal
- Variant Scientists in Genomic Medicine: Survey of Demographics, Training, Duties, and Professional Development 95%
- Clinical Validation and Diagnostic Utility of Optical Genome Mapping in Prenatal Diagnostic Testing 89%
- Rapid implementation of SARS-CoV-2 emergency use authorization RT-PCR testing and experience at an academic medical institution 87%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.