Back

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.

2025-05-02 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2025.04.30.25326673 medRxiv
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.

1
Genetics in Medicine
78 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
31.3%
2
European Journal of Human Genetics
58 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.6%
3
Genetics in Medicine Open
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
50% of probability mass above
4
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
39 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.2%
6
Genes
144 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.2%
7
The American Journal of Human Genetics
234 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
8
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
9
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
10
Journal of Medical Genetics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
11
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
12
GENETICS
483 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
13
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 69%
1.0%
14
Journal of Bioinformatics and Systems Biology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
15
BMC Medical Genomics
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
16
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
17
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
18
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
BMC Genomics
406 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
20
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 39%
0.6%
21
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
22
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%