Assessing the Level of Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence in Colposcopy: Results of a Cross-Sectional Survey of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Introduction: Despite the active adoption of digital innovations in healthcare delivery, the acceptance of artificial intelligence in the medical community remains unclear.

Objective: To establish AI acceptance in colposcopy by surveying obstetricians and gynecologists.

Materials and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional anonymous survey of 392 obstetricians and gynecologists in St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. The developed questionnaire included three sets of questions: the first set characterized the respondent’s profile; the second set comprised questions related to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology; and the third set of additional questions addressed the risks of adopting new technologies, including ethical and legal aspects.

Results and Discussion: We observed positive trends in obstetricians and gynecologists’ intentions to use artificial intelligence in their practice. At the same time, the analysis revealed a number of problems, including insufficient trust in AI-generated results, limited availability of equipment and technical support. Another issue of concern for healthcare professionals is the partial substitution of their functions. Furthermore, the majority of respondents (247 (63 %)) believe that the existing legal framework is insufficient for the safe practical AI use. Moreover, many respondents (292 (74.5 %)) believe that legal liability for artificial intelligence errors should lie with the healthcare facility and the software developer, while only one in five respondents (80 (20.4 %)) believes that liability should be shared.

Conclusions: This study is the first to provide a comprehensive assessment of the readiness of obstetricians and gynecologists to use artificial intelligence tools in colposcopy in the Russian Federation. It should be assumed that the level of hypothetical support for the adoption of innovations may be quite high but practical implementation is limited by infrastructural barriers and legal uncertainty.

1. Li Z, Liu P, Yin A, et al. Global landscape of cervical cancer incidence and mortality in 2022 and predictions to 2030: The urgent need to address inequalities in cervical cancer. Int J Cancer. 2025;157(2):288-297. doi: 10.1002/ijc.35369

2. Еlgina SI, Zolotorevskaya OS, Zakharov IS, et al. Cytological screening for cervical cancer diagnosing. Mat’ i Ditya v Kuzbasse. 2019;(3(78)):37-40. (In Russ.)

3. Brown BH, Tidy JA. The diagnostic accuracy of colposcopy – A review of research methodology and impact on the outcomes of quality assurance. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;240:182-186. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.07.003

4. Quaas J, Reich O, Tirri BF, Küppers V. Explanation and use of the colposcopy terminology of the IFCPC (International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy) Rio 2011. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2013;73(9):904-907. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1350824

5. Khan MJ, Werner CL, Darragh TM, et al. ASCCP colposcopy standards: Role of colposcopy, benefits, potential harms, and terminology for colposcopic practice. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2017;21(4):223-229. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000338

6. Harlfinger J, Sommer I, Gartlehner G. WHO Guideline for Screening and Treatment of Cervical Pre-Cancerous Lesions for Cervical Cancer Prevention (Second Edition). Gesundheitswesen. 2023;85(7):630-634. (In German.) doi: 10.1055/a-2052-6652

7. Sukhikh GT, Davydov DG, Loginov VV, Baev OR, Prikhodko AM, Sheshko EL, Chmykhova EV. The state of and prospects for the introduction of artificial intelligence technologies in obstetric and gynecological practice. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. 2021;2:5-12. (In Russ.) doi: 10.18565/aig.2021.2.5-12

8. Nazarenko AA, Zakharov IS, Bezmenko AA, Molchanov LO, Sharshova OA. [Evaluation of colposcopy images using artificial intelligence (“ProColpo”).] Software Registration Certificate RU RU 2025694704 of December 8, 2025. Application No. 2025693712 of December 1, 2025.

9. Mozes VG, Kotov RM, Rudaeva EV, Elgina SI, Mozes KB, Vavin GV. Artificial intelligence technologies in gynecology. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. 2025;(8):16-25. (In Russ.) doi: 10.18565/aig.2025.92

10. Liu L, Liu J, Su Q, Chu Y, Xia H, Xu R. Performance of artificial intelligence for diagnosing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2024;80:102992. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102992

11. Takahashi T, Kobayashi Y, Sakurai R, et al. A systematic review of the application of artificial intelligence in colposcopy: Diagnostic accuracy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2025;19:11795549251374908. doi: 10.1177/11795549251374908

12. Xue Z, Novetsky AP, Einstein MH, et al. A demonstration of automated visual evaluation of cervical images taken with a smartphone camera. Int J Cancer. 2020;147(9):2416-2423. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33029

13. Wu A, Xue P, Abulizi G, Tuerxun D, Rezhake R, Qiao Y. Artificial intelligence in colposcopic examination: A promising tool to assist junior colposcopists. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1060451. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1060451

14. Wang H, Ye Z, Zhang P, et al. Chinese colposcopists’ attitudes toward the colposcopic artificial intelligence auxiliary diagnostic system (CAIADS): A nation-wide, multi-center survey. Digit Health. 2024;10:20552076241279952. doi: 10.1177/20552076241279952

15. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003;27(3):425-478. doi: 10.2307/30036540

16. Hameed MS, Laplante S, Masino C, et al. What is the educational value and clinical utility of artificial intelligence for intraoperative and postoperative video analysis? A survey of surgeons and trainees. Surg Endosc. 2023;37(12):9453-9460. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10377-3

17. Cobianchi L, Piccolo D, Dal Mas F, et al.; Team Dynamics Study Group. Surgeons’ perspectives on artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making in trauma and emergency contexts: Results from an international survey. World J Emerg Surg. 2023;18(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s13017-022-00467-3

18. Tun HM, Rahman HA, Naing L, Malik OA. Trust in artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support systems among health care workers: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e69678. doi: 10.2196/69678

19. Park SJ, Lee EJ, Kim SI, Kong SH, Jeong CW, Kim HS. Clinical desire for an artificial intelligence-based surgical assistant system: Electronic survey-based study. JMIR Med Inform. 2020;8(5):e17647. doi: 10.2196/17647

20. Mezrich JL. Is artificial intelligence (AI) a pipe dream? Why legal issues present significant hurdles to AI auto nomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022;219(1):152-156. doi: 10.2214/AJR.21.27224

21. Jaremko JL, Azar M, Bromwich R, et al.; Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Artificial Intelligence Working Group. Canadian Association of Radiologists white paper on ethical and legal issues related to artificial intelligence in radiology. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2019;70(2):107-118. doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2019.03.001

22. Appel JM. Artificial intelligence in medicine and the negative outcome penalty paradox. J Med Ethics. 2024;51(1):34-36. doi: 10.1136/jme-2023-109848