Comprehensive Summary
This study examined integration of AI in today’s urological practice. A survey was created and sent to 243 urology professionals internationally based in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Based on the survey, two thirds of the participants reported that they had prior experience with generative AI, though the frequency of usage varied from daily (9%) to weekly (30%) to less. Main usage of AI was reported as patient education (55%) and treatment recommendation (44%). It was also used for research support, such as data synthesis or literature review. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the majority of the participants raised concerns regarding the usage of AI, such as reliability, diagnostic accuracy, and data privacy. A Quarter of the respondents stated that AI should not replace any of the health care functions, and that it must be a supplemental tool for human experts. These findings emphasize the need for specific clinical training and proper validation to safely integrate AI into the medical field.
Outcomes and Implications
Overall, the survey highlights both the potentials and cautions regarding AI usage. The results show that despite the increase of traction of generative AI in the field of urology, it is not yet reliable enough to be a source for clinical decision-making. While AI's current common usage for patient communication and administrative support shows a promising future for AIs in the medical field, the major concerns about accuracy and legal responsibility show the high standards needed to fully adopt AI into direct patient care. In order for artificial intelligence to become more than a supportive tool, it must go through numerous clinical training and strict regulatory frameworks to ensure validity. For now, clinical use must remain under supervision of physicians.