The study purports to evaluate the acceptance of AI by physicians, but the specific types of AI technologies explored remain ambiguous. Are they examining generative AI, natural language processing tools, classical machine learning, or other uses of AI?

The phrase “Although scarcely used in real practice” comes across as too assertive. Consider a softer phrasing.

The methods section should provide a more comprehensive breakdown of the questionnaire’s design process. Which question types were chosen (Likert scale, yes or no, or numerical), and for what reasons?

When presenting results, always give raw data (numerator/denominator) along with percentages, especially after statements such as “Most of them described their AI knowledge as intermediate.”

There is a noticeable omission of a power analysis. How can we ascertain that the sample size sufficiently represents the broader population? The description of the target population needs elaboration.

The statement “Artificial intelligence (AI) applied to Medicine has been a trending subject in recent years” is preferable over mentioning it as the “hottest topic.”

In Table 1, the age bracket should read “50-65” as the “50” seems to be missing. Several P values appear without context, for instance: “10. General AI Knowledge (n=164); P=.2565,” “11. Regularity of AI tool usage in daily life (n=164); P=.9792,” and “12. Familiar with medical AI solutions? (n=164); P=.2774.”

Tables 2 and 3 also contain P values that require explanations or clarifications.