Background/Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) is fundamentally transforming cardiovascular care, but patient trust remains a primary barrier to clinical integration. This study investigates the “AI Literacy Paradox” among digital-savvy early adopters to identify predictors of trust across varied clinical scenarios, ranging from routine monitoring to critical decisions. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 254 technologically proficient participants (mean age: 39.7 years). Trust was evaluated across 11 cardiovascular scenarios involving medication management, emergency triage, and diagnostic conflicts. Statistical analyses included binary logistic regression to identify predictors, K-means clustering for patient segmentation, and Mann–Whitney U tests to evaluate algorithm aversion. Results: AI knowledge was a strong positive predictor of trust (odds ratio [OR]: 3.522). However, holders of graduate degrees exhibited “informed skepticism,” with 66% lower odds of trust (OR: 0.340), illustrating the AI Literacy Paradox. Significant trust gaps were also identified for women (OR: 0.610) and patients with chronic illnesses (OR: 0.563). Participants demonstrated clear algorithm aversion in high-stakes scenarios, with over 92% preferring physician-led medication management and 87.4% prioritizing physician judgment over AI in diagnostic conflicts. Four distinct user segments were identified, with “Older Educated Female Neutrals” (53.5%) forming the largest group. Conclusions: Trust in AI in cardiovascular scenarios is a multidimensional, segment-specific construct. Higher education levels often lead to critical scrutiny rather than blind acceptance. To ensure successful adoption, AI integration must prioritize hybrid “physician-in-the-loop” models that preserve the human-centric nature of the therapeutic alliance while addressing the specific privacy and safety concerns of diverse user segments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Görkem Yıldız (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: