TRV-2026-2231Version 1 · Certified

Written 2026-10-24 00:00:48 UTC · current record

Reason for this version

Certified into the record

Canonical text (the exact bytes fingerprinted)

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-2231
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-10-24T00:00:48.139624Z
status: published
lens: p_space
sector: health
headline: Changes in the acceptance of artificial intelligence in medicine among physicians and the general public in Japan: A repeated cross-sectional comparison of 2018 and 2025
dek: Author summary Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in healthcare, where it may support diagnosis, treatment decision-making, and clinical operations. As AI technologies have advanced and become more familiar in society, attitudes toward medical AI may also have changed. However, greater familiarity with AI does not necessarily mean that physicians or members of the public are more willing to receive care led by AI. To examine these changes, we compared two online surveys conducted in Japan in 2018…
gain_title: (none)
problem_title: Greater public knowledge of medical AI by 2025 did not translate into greater willingness to use autonomous AI-led care, and public expectations of higher healthcare costs grew.
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: (none)
gain_evidence: (none)
problem_reading: Greater public knowledge of medical AI by 2025 did not translate into greater willingness to use autonomous AI-led care, and public expectations of higher healthcare costs grew.
problem_evidence: their intention to use it did not significantly differ between the two survey years | expectations that AI would increase healthcare costs were also greater
quick_read: Researchers compared two online surveys fielded in Japan in 2018 and 2025 using the same questionnaire, one set of respondents being physicians and the other the general public. Both groups still saw medical AI as useful and necessary in future, yet their stated intention to use it was not significantly different between the two years.

The result matters because it suggests that exposure to AI does not automatically build trust in relatively autonomous medical AI. What remains unclear is which concerns drive hesitancy, since the supplied text is only the author summary and the start of the abstract, and it gives no further detail on methods or sample sizes.
limitation: The supplied text is truncated, and the unadjusted physician efficiency difference was not significant after adjusting for age and sex, so apparent attitude changes may reflect respondent differences.
tag: Evidence-backed problem
key_points: The study is a repeated cross-sectional comparison of 2018 and 2025 online surveys in Japan using the same questionnaire. | Physicians and the public both continued to recognize the usefulness and future necessity of medical AI. | Intention to use medical AI did not differ significantly between survey years in either group. | Physicians' higher expectations of efficiency gains in the unadjusted comparison were no longer significant after adjusting for age and sex. | Self-rated knowledge among the public rose in 2025, as did expectations of higher healthcare costs.
rundown: The authors frame the work around a question that remains open: whether growing societal familiarity with AI is accompanied by greater willingness to receive relatively autonomous AI-led care. They note AI may support diagnosis, treatment decision-making, and clinical operations.

Among physicians, expectations that AI could improve clinical efficiency were higher in the unadjusted comparison. That difference disappeared once age and sex were accounted for, so the apparent shift may reflect differences in who responded rather than changed attitudes.

Among members of the public, self-rated knowledge of medical AI was higher in 2025. Expectations that AI would raise healthcare costs were also greater, a persistent concern the authors say must be addressed alongside improved understanding to build informed trust.
sources:
- journalism | PLOS (Public Library of Science) | https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pdig.0001769 | 2026-10-23
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
sha256
c939840e549de293c5ed9ebe358e0b1352cbb756190817fe51025a1ca5e3454d
previous
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Verify this record
How to verify without trusting this page

Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2231 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.