You are here

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Ethics
Original research
Healthcare ethics and artificial intelligence: a UK doctor survey
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 13 May 2025
    Regulated vs. Non-Regulated AI in UK Medicine: Commentary on Warrington and Holm (2024) and the Role of LLM Risk Assessment

    Comments related to the findings reported by Warrington and Holm regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by UK General Medical Council (GMC) registered doctors (Warrington DJ, Holm S. BMJ Open 2024;14:e089090. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089090).
    A key observation regarding the study is its apparent lack of distinction between participants' use of regulated AI products (classified as medical devices) and non-regulated AI tools (such as general-purpose LLMs). The wide range of respondent specialties reported further highlights this potential issue; for instance, clinicians in radiology or pathology are more likely to encounter regulated, task-specific AI, whereas those in public health or psychiatry might be more likely to experiment with non-regulated, general-purpose models.
    During the review process, I used Gemini Advanced (specifically, the model designated by the user as 2.5 Pro Experimental) to assist with processing screenshots of table1, table 2 and fig 1 into spreadsheet processable data. The same Large Language Model (LLM) was also prompted to categorize the clinical risks associated with the AI uses listed in Figure 1 of the original paper. The author is of the opinion that the LLM’s risk categorisation (column 2 in table A below) adopted a patient-centric perspective.
    However, the author is of the opinion that a "composite" clinical risk assessment, which considers both the nature of the specific usage instance and the pot...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.