PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Ng, Jeremy Y.
AU  - Maduranayagam, Sharleen G.
AU  - Suthakar, Nirekah
AU  - Li, Amy
AU  - Lokker, Cynthia
AU  - Iorio, Alfonso
AU  - Haynes, R. Brian
AU  - Moher, David
TI  - Attitudes and Perceptions of Medical Researchers Towards the Use of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in the Scientific Process: A Large-Scale, International Cross-Sectional Survey
AID  - 10.1101/2024.02.27.24303462
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.02.27.24303462
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/28/2024.02.27.24303462.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/28/2024.02.27.24303462.full
AB  - Background Chatbots are artificial intelligence (AI) programs designed to simulate conversations with human users through text or speech. The use of artificial intelligence chatbots (AICs) in scientific research presents benefits and challenges. Although the stances of journals and publishing organizations on AIC use is increasingly clear, little is known about researchers’ perceptions of AICs in research. This survey study explores attitudes, familiarity, perceived benefits, limitations, and factors influencing adoption of AIC by researchers.Methods A cross-sectional online survey of published researchers was conducted. Corresponding authors and their e-mail addresses were identified by querying PubMed for articles (any type) published in a MEDLINE indexed journal in the most recent two months and using R script on PubMed metadata. e-Mail invitations were sent to 61560 study authors. The survey, administered on SurveyMonkey, opened on July 9, 2023, and closed on August 11, 2023. Respondents had 3 weeks to complete the survey and were sent 2 reminder e-mails during the weeks of July 17, 2023, and July 24, 2023.Results 2165 respondents completed the survey (4.0% response rate; 94% completion rate of those who responded). Most were familiar with the concept of AICs (n=1294/2138, 60.5%). About half had used an AIC previously for purposes relating to the scientific process (n=1107/2125, 52.1%). Only 244/2137 (11.4%) respondents reported that their institution offered training on using AI tools of whom 64/244 (26.2%) completed the training. 211/2131 (9.9%) reported that their institution implemented policies regarding AIC use in the scientific process. Most respondents expressed interest in learning more and receiving training on AIC use in the scientific process (n=1428/2048, 69.7%). Respondents had mixed opinions about the potential benefits of using AICs, whereas most agreed on their cons/challenges. Respondents agreed AICs were most beneficial in reducing the workload and administrative burden on researchers (n=1299/1941, 66.9%) and they were most concerned about the lack of understanding behind how AICs make decisions and generate responses (n=1484/1923, 77.2%).Conclusions Most respondents are familiar with AICs and half used AICs in their own research. Although there is clear interest in understanding how AICs can be used, many hesitate due to existing limitations. Little formal instruction on using AICs is available across academic institutions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SRM34 https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.26.23293211 Funding StatementThis study is unfunded.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics approval was granted by the Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board (REB Number: 20230288-01H).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data and materials associated with this study is available in this manuscript or has been made publicly available for download on the Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/25Y8Q AIartificial intelligenceAICartificial intelligence chatbotCDSclinical decision supportChatGPTchat generative pre-trained transformerCOPECommittee on Publication EthicsLLMlarge language modelOSFOpen Science FrameworkPMIDPubMed IdentifierWAMEWorld Association of Medical Editors