RESUMO
Background and Aims: The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) relies on computer science and large datasets, with the technology mimicking human intelligence as it makes logical decisions. This study aims to assess the perceptions and experiences of anesthesiology practitioners toward AI and identify its benefits to healthcare professionals and patients, along with current and future applications of AI. Methods: This cross-sectional descriptive online survey study was disseminated to physicians who work in anesthesiology practice in Saudi Arabia. Descriptive statistics were used to report the characteristics of the respondents and summarize the results of the survey. Results: There were 109 responses, with 85.32% being male, 35.78% being aged 40-49 years, and 69.72% being consultant anesthesiologists. The majority of participants (73.39%) believed that AI could be used in multiple settings related to anesthesiology practice. Participants also believed that AI could facilitate access to data (76.15%), enable precise decision-making (75.23%), reduce medical errors (55.04%), reduce workload and shortage of healthcare personnel (53.21%), and allow healthcare personnel to focus on more demanding cases (69.72%). In addition, the majority of participants believed that AI can be beneficial to patients, in which 69.72% believed that AI can improve patient access to care, 77.06% believed that AI can facilitate patient education, and 65.14% believed that AI can guide patients during treatment. Lastly, 70.64% believed that AI would be beneficial to anesthesiology practices in the future. However, 61.47% claimed that their workplace has no plan for adopting AI. Conclusions: The anesthesiologists showed generally positive attitudes towards AI, in spite of its limited utilization and implementation challenges. Strong beliefs exist about AI's future potential in anesthesia care and postgraduate education.
RESUMO
Introduction: Breast cancer (BC) is one of the commonest cancers among women worldwide. Differences regarding tumor biology, presentation, genetics, and molecular subtypes may contribute to the relatively poorer prognosis among younger women. Limited information exists regarding pathologic characteristics and long-term outcomes among this group. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 695 BC patients diagnosed over a 10-year period and investigated the clinicopathological characteristics and long-term disease outcomes among patients diagnosed at age less than or equal to 40 years compared with older ones. Cox regression analysis was performed, and Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to assess overall survival (OS). Results: Compared with the younger patients (⩽40 years) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) expression was mainly positive in older patients (>40 years) (76.2% vs 61.3% and 64.2% vs 49.6%, respectively). The most common molecular subtype in both age groups was luminal B (44.1% in older and 40.3% in younger). A clinical complete remission after neoadjuvant therapy was observed more frequently in older patients (76.7%; N = 442) in comparison with the younger patients (66.4%; N = 79) (P = .018). Recurrence and disease progression were significantly more likely to occur among younger patients accounting for 12.6% and 29.4% of the cases, compared with 6.3% and 18.2% in older patients (P = .016 and P = .006, respectively). The overall mortality was 132 (19%) of 695, with 88% cancer-related deaths. Estrogen receptor and PR expression (P ⩽ .001 and P = .003, respectively), molecular subtype (P = .002), tumor grade (P = .002), and N stage (P = .038) were the variables that were found to be significantly influenced by age. The OS was not statistically different among 2 age groups, but younger patients with luminal A molecular subtype showed significantly poor outcome (P = .019). Conclusion: Overall survival in women diagnosed with BC at age less than or equal to 40 years is not significantly worse than older patients. However, among patients with luminal A subtype, younger women had relatively poor survival. Further research is needed to understand this age-based disparity in outcomes.