Generative AI in medicine: use and acceptance among professionals in orthopedics and traumatology: a survey-based analysis in Germany.

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) are showing remarkable capabilities in generating qualitative text, displaying potential to revolutionize daily life and professional practices, including medical diagnostics and education. The use of ChatGPT in publishing, especially its legal and ethical implications, is subject of growing scientific interest and discussion. The underlying study aims to understand the current status, usage patterns, and future expectations of generative AI among healthcare professionals. An anonymous online survey among healthcare professionals was distributed to members of the German society for orthopedics and traumatology (February and March 2024). The questionnaire comprised 12 questions regarding individual use of and attitude towards artificial intelligence. The responses of two age-dependent groups (group 1 ≤ 45 years vs. group 2 > 45 years) were compared. A total of 375 of 504 invited participants completed the survey (response rate 74%); 177 respondents were aged ≤ 45 years. Awareness of ChatGPT was high in both groups, while prior self-reported use was more common in group 1 (73% vs. 62%, p = 0.03). Respondents aged ≤ 45 years more often reported that they could imagine using ChatGPT for manuscript-related tasks (59% vs. 44%, p = 0.001), whereas respondents aged > 45 years more frequently supported disclosure of ChatGPT use in manuscript preparation (86% vs. 77%, p = 0.001). The age groups differed significantly in professional role distribution. In an adjusted analysis including professional position, the association between age group and AI use remained similar but not significant (unadjusted OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4; adjusted OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.6; p 0.053). In this cohort of DGOU members, awareness of generative AI was high and self-reported use was common. Younger respondents reported more frequent use of ChatGPT and related digital tools. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because they reflect self-reported cross-sectional data from one professional society and do not demonstrate actual integration of AI into clinical or academic workflows. The creation of an ethical framework is therefore essential and our participants want the use to be clearly identified.