Patient and artificial intelligence: shifts in trust and questions of expertise

This article examines the transformation of the doctor-patient model in the context of the widespread adoption of large language models (artificial intelligence, AI).

Objective. To identify and theoretically conceptualize a new patient figure – the “AI-verifier” – and to analyze the changes in medical interaction practices associated with the incorporation of algorithmic systems into the processes of interpreting and verifying clinical decisions.

Materials and methods. The empirical basis of the study consists of in-depth semi-structured interviews with physicians from various medical specialties (n = 18; professional experience ranging from 0.5 to 30 years). The data were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis with a two-stage inductive coding procedure, grounded in the methodological framework of interpretive sociology and the sociology of medicine.

Results. The findings indicate the emergence of a new patient figure who turns to AI systems to verify diagnoses, prescriptions, and clinical judgments. In the interviews, physicians describe the inclusion of AI in the “second opinion” chain alongside online resources and telemedicine consultations, though they do not always recognize the qualitative distinctiveness of algorithmic verification. Unlike the e-patient and other digitally mediated patient types, the AI-verifier delegates to the system not only information retrieval but also analysis, interpretation, and evaluative judgment. The algorithm is perceived by patients as a neutral, technologically objective, and interest-free arbiter. This dynamic intensifies competition between clinical reasoning and confidently articulated algorithmic outputs, reshapes the foundations of trust, redistributes responsibility, and reconfigures the structure of expertise within medical communication.

Conclusion. The emergence of the AI-verifier signals a structural shift in the social architecture of healthcare: not only the source of knowledge changes, but also the mechanisms of its legitimation. To sustain their professional role, physicians must develop communicative competencies enabling them to articulate the limitations of algorithmic recommendations and the contextual specificity of clinical decision-making.

1. Mechanic D. Changing medical organization and the erosion of trust. Milbank Q. 1996; 74(2): 171–189.

2. Katkova A.V., Andriyanova E.A., Ul'yanov V.Yu. Historical dynamics of social and role interaction between a doctor and a patient. Saratovskij nauchno-medicinskij zhurnal. 2018; 14(3): 549–552. (in Russian)

3. Hardey M. Doctor in the house: the internet as a source of lay health knowledge and the challenge to expertise. Sociol Health Illn. 1999; 21(6). doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.00185.

4. Powell J., Clarke A. Internet information-seeking in mental health. Br J Psychiatry. 2006; 189(3): 273–277.

5. Polynskaya G.A., Mesropyan M.G. Detection of patterns and trends in patient behavior while using electronic applications and Internet resources for self-diagnosis. Biznes-informatika. 2018; 1(43): 28–38. (in Russian)

6. Fox N.J., Ward K.J., O’Rourke A.J. The 'expert patient': empowerment or medical dominance? The case of weight loss, pharmaceutical drugs and the Internet. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 60(6): 1299–1309.

7. Mis'kova E.V. The community of patients in contemporary Russia: body and identity. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie. 2015; 6: 101– 115. (in Russian)

8. Ferguson T., E-patients scholars working group. E-patients: how they can help us heal healthcare. 2007. 104.

9. Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res. 2008; 10(3). doi: 10.2196/jmir.1030.

10. White R.W., Horvitz E. Cyberchondria: studies of the escalation of medical concerns in web search. TOIS. 2009; 27(4). doi: 10.1145/1629096.1629101.

11. Fox S. The social life of health information; 2011. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/media/Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Social_Life_of_Health_Info.pdf (accessed: 07.04.2026).

12. Buzin V.N., Buzina T.S. The relationship between doctor and patient in the information society. Profilakticheskaya medicina. 2020; 23(5): 111–116. (in Russian)

13. Belousova N. The use of the internet by patients with chronic diseases in Samara: an empirical analysis. Teleskop. 2019; 2(134): 40–43. (in Russian)

14. Chirikova A.E., Shishkin S.V. Interaction between doctors and patients in Russia: vectors of change. Mir Rossii. 2014; 2: 154–182. (in Russian)

15. Broom A. Medical specialists' accounts of the impact of the internet on the doctor/patient relationship. Health. 2005; 9(3): 319–338.

16. Hibbard J.H., Stockard J., Mahoney E.R., Tusler M. Development of the patient activation measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. HSR. 2004; 39. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x.

17. Funnell M.M., Anderson R.M., Arnold M.S., et al. Empowerment: an idea whose time has come in diabetes education. Diabetes Educ. 1991; 17(1): 37–41.

18. Khuntia J., Yimb D., Tanniru M., Lim S. Patient empowerment and engagement with a health infomediary. HPT. 2017; 6(1): 40–50.

19. Bogomyagkova Е. “Trust but verifyˮ: health care practices in the context of digitalization. Zhurnal issledovanij social'noj politiki. 2022; 20(2): 263–278. doi: 10.17323/727-0634-2022-20-2-263-278. (in Russian)

20. Topol E. Deep medicine: how artificial intelligence can make healthcare human again. New York: Basic Books; 2019. 400.

21. Blease C. Patients are disclosing sensitive information to AI tools – clinicians must adapt. BMJ. 2026; 392: 124. doi: 10.1136/bmj.s124.

22. Gillespie T. The relevance of algorithms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2024. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262525374.003.0009.

23. Pasquale F. The black box society: the secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2015. 260.

24. Blease C., Kaptchuk T.J., Bernstein M.H., et al. Artificial intelligence and the future of primary care: exploratory qualitative study of UK general practitioners’ views. J Med Int Res. 2019; 21(3). doi: 10.2196/12802.