Medical Students’ Perceptions towards Digitization and Artificial Intelligence: A Mixed-Methods Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents a study of perception of AI and digitization healthcare which is achieved by qualitative and quantitative surveys. Importantly, the study has pointed out the lack of in-depth awareness about digital health technologies in students and highlighted the need for education of the same. Authors have sufficiently described the study methodologies including the survey and drawn

The following revisions should be addressed before publication:

1. The citations are not formatted according to the journal guidelines. Please revise.
2. Include the full form of STD described in the results.
3. Table 3 “Health apps and computer algorithms are for patients disturbing (=)…” should “(=)” be “(0)”?
4. Line 252, 24/7 is the commonly accepted form of 7/24.
5. Line 267 and 268, the description of figure 1 is not clear. Does “focused on senses” mean in-person patient-doctor interaction?
6. Table 4 data suggest Digital networks increase doctor nurse communication but Line 266 says it undermines the same. Can you clarify?
7. Table 5, what does numbers 1 through 7 represent?

Author Response

Rebuttal for Reviewer 1:

1. The quoted literature has been adapted to the ACS Style Guide. For that, the authors used to software package Zotero.

2. STD are included in the all tables were indicated: sum+STD has been added in the legend.

3. In Table 3 (=) has been changed into (0). It was a typo, sorry.

4. Line 252: 7/24 has been changed into 24/7.

5. Line 267 and 268, the description of figure 1 “focused on senses” means that the diagnostic workup should be more focused on the physical examination (the doctor’s senses) rather than based on technical diagnostics. In the revised manuscript has been added in line 270 “and use their senses in physical examinations rather than rely on impersonal technical tools for the diagnostic work-up”.

6. In Line 266/267 the term “undermine” was wrong. It has been changed into “ease”. Thank you for the hint.

7. Table 5: The students could rank their answer. 1 = don’t know, 2= false up to 7 = fully agree. The statistical calculation was done only for ranks 2 to 7, excluding the students, who could not or didn’t want to answer the question. The authors knew from the qualitative study part, that some students had no knowledge about AI. Therefor the “don’t know” option was included. In the first draft of the manuscript the legends contained a mistake, because the “fully agree” option had the highest number (7) but not 3. This has been changed in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Here attached, please find my comments for the improvement of your paper.

Hope this helps!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See the point-by-point response in the attached Word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx