Technology acceptance of machine learning in life sciences: the role of hype perception and journal impact factor.

Machine learning (ML) has emerged as a transformative technology across biomedical and life science sectors, with applications spanning drug discovery, medical imaging, genomics, and clinical decision support (Goecks et al., 2020; Patel et al., 2020). Despite exponential growth in ML-related publications, from fewer than 100 articles in 2003 to nearly 25,000 by 2021 (NCBI, 2022), adoption among industry professionals remains uneven and sector-dependent. Understanding what drives or inhibits this adoption is critical for organisations seeking to leverage ML capabilities in research and clinical practice. Technology adoption in organisational contexts has been extensively studied through the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), originally proposed by Davis (1989) and subsequently extended to incorporate external variables influencing perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU) (Venkatesh & Davis, 1996). While TAM has been applied across multiple industries, its application within biomedical and life science contexts remains limited, and the industry-specific factors that shape ML acceptance in this sector have not been systematically examined. Two external variables are particularly relevant to life science professionals. First, the bibliometric journal impact factor (JIF) functions as a cognitive signal of scientific credibility, a sector where evidence-based decision-making is culturally embedded, and publication quality serves as a proxy for technological legitimacy (Garfield, 1996). Second, technology hype, operationalised through the Gartner Hype Cycle framework, represents a social influence variable that shapes organisational expectations and investment decisions around emerging technologies (Gartner Inc., 2018). Whether these variables influence ML acceptance among life science professionals, alongside individual knowledge and experience, has not been empirically tested. This study addresses that gap by investigating ML technology acceptance among 213 biomedical and life science professionals across EMEA, LATAM, and North America, using a cross-sectional quantitative survey and PLS-SEM analysis. The TAM model is extended with three external variables, JIF, technology hype, and prior knowledge and experience, to test their influence on PU and PEU in this specific professional context. Additionally, the study examines demographic and regional differences in ML acceptance, with particular attention to variation between academic researchers and healthcare professionals. The findings contribute a validated, sector-specific extension of TAM for life sciences, provide actionable insights for organisations seeking to accelerate ML implementation, and establish a framework for future subsector-specific research.