Back

Attitudes and Perceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in the Scientific Process of Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Research: A Large-Scale, International Cross-Sectional Survey

Ng, J. Y.; Tan, J.; Syed, N.; Adapa, K.; Gupta, P. K.; Li, S.; Mehta, D.; Ring, M.; Shridhar, M.; Souza, J. P.; Yoshino, T.; Lee, M. S.; Cramer, H.

2026-04-15 health informatics
10.64898/2026.04.13.26350612 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) chatbots have shown utility in assisting with various research tasks. Traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) is a patient-centric approach that emphasizes holistic well-being. The integration of TCIM and GenAI presents numerous key opportunities. However, TCIM researchers' attitudes toward GenAI tools remain less understood. This large-scale, international cross-sectional survey aimed to elucidate the attitudes and perceptions of TCIM researchers regarding the use of GenAI chatbots in the scientific process. Methods: A search strategy in Ovid MEDLINE identified corresponding authors who were TCIM researchers. Eligible authors were invited to complete an anonymous online survey administered via SurveyMonkey. The survey included questions on socio-demographic characteristics, familiarity with GenAI chatbots, and perceived benefits and challenges of using GenAI chatbots. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis. Results: The survey received 716 responses. Most respondents reported familiarity with GenAI chatbots (58.08%) and viewed them as very important to the future of scientific research (54.37%). The most acknowledged benefits included workload reduction (74.07%) and increased efficiency in data analysis/experimentation (71.14%). The most frequently reported challenges involved bias, errors, and limitations. More than half of the respondents (57.02%) expressed a need for training to use GenAI chatbots in the scientific process, alongside an interest in receiving training (72.07%). However, 43.67% indicated that their institutions did not offer these programs. Discussion: By developing a deeper understanding of TCIM researchers' perspectives, future AI applications in this field can be more informed, and guide future policies and collaboration among researchers.

Matching journals

The top 12 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 19%
10.0%
2
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
3
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
4
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.9%
5
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
6
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
7
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.6%
9
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
10
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.2%
11
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.0%
12
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.9%
50% of probability mass above
13
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.9%
14
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.3%
15
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
16
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
17
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
18
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
19
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
20
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
21
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
22
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
23
BMC Medical Education
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
24
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
25
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
26
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
27
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
28
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
29
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
30
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%