Purpose: Medical artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly being integrated into clinical practice and healthcare systems, raising concerns regarding safety, accountability, and governance. Despite its increasing importance, empirical comparative studies examining differences in perceptions of medical AI among key expert groups remain limited. This study aimed to compare and analyze perceptions of medical AI among medical and non-medical professionals and to systematically identify commonalities and differences across policy- and governance-relevant domains. Methods: Focus group interviews using open-ended questions were conducted with 30 experts (15 medical and 15 non-medical professionals) who had direct experience with medical AI. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis combined with qualitative comparative analysis. Analytical rigor was strengthened through independent coding and consensus-based discussions. Results: Both groups recognized the potential of medical AI to bring meaningful changes to healthcare systems. However, medical professionals primarily evaluated medical AI in terms of clinical applicability, patient safety, explainability, and accountability. In contrast, non-medical professionals emphasized technological maturity, scalability, data infrastructure, standardization, and system-integration potential. Group-specific patterns also emerged regarding perceived limitations, autonomy, educational priorities, and classification frameworks, particularly in relation to clinical risk management versus system-level design and governance considerations. Conclusion: Differences in perceptions of medical AI are systematically associated with distinct interpretive frames shaped by professional roles and responsibility structures. Effective implementation and policy design for medical AI therefore require an integrated approach that accounts for these structural differences. This study provides empirical evidence and a conceptual foundation for future quantitative and mixed-methods research on medical AI governance.

Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

Osteoporosis management in post-menopausal women focuses on fracture prevention, with denosumab as a key therapeutic option. Despite its proven efficacy in reducing fracture risk and increasing bone mineral density (BMD) over 10 years, its long-term impact remains uncertain. We evaluated the literature on its efficacy and safety beyond the initial decade. Clinical trials and real-world studies confirm denosumab’s sustained efficacy, especially in lumbar spine BMD, with hip BMD stabilizing. Concerns about adverse events (AEs) like hypocalcemia and osteonecrosis of the jaw necessitate vigilant monitoring. Risks of atypical femoral fractures and malignancies also require attention, despite unclear links to treatment duration. Clinical guidelines for denosumab beyond 10 years are limited, emphasizing the need for careful monitoring. In certain scenarios, such as advanced chronic kidney disease, prolonged denosumab may be required to balance AE risks with fracture prevention benefits. Denosumab shows potential for long-term efficacy in augmenting BMD; however, monitoring for AEs is crucial to guide clinical decision-making effectively.

Osteoporosis management in post-menopausal women focuses on fracture prevention, with denosumab as a key therapeutic option. Despite its proven efficacy in reducing fracture risk and increasing bone mineral density (BMD) over 10 years, its long-term impact remains uncertain. We evaluated the literature on its efficacy and safety beyond the initial decade. Clinical trials and real-world studies confirm denosumab’s sustained efficacy, especially in lumbar spine BMD, with hip BMD stabilizing. Concerns about adverse events (AEs) like hypocalcemia and osteonecrosis of the jaw necessitate vigilant monitoring. Risks of atypical femoral fractures and malignancies also require attention, despite unclear links to treatment duration. Clinical guidelines for denosumab beyond 10 years are limited, emphasizing the need for careful monitoring. In certain scenarios, such as advanced chronic kidney disease, prolonged denosumab may be required to balance AE risks with fracture prevention benefits. Denosumab shows potential for long-term efficacy in augmenting BMD; however, monitoring for AEs is crucial to guide clinical decision-making effectively.

Osteoporosis management in post-menopausal women focuses on fracture prevention, with denosumab as a key therapeutic option. Despite its proven efficacy in reducing fracture risk and increasing bone mineral density (BMD) over 10 years, its long-term impact remains uncertain. We evaluated the literature on its efficacy and safety beyond the initial decade. Clinical trials and real-world studies confirm denosumab’s sustained efficacy, especially in lumbar spine BMD, with hip BMD stabilizing. Concerns about adverse events (AEs) like hypocalcemia and osteonecrosis of the jaw necessitate vigilant monitoring. Risks of atypical femoral fractures and malignancies also require attention, despite unclear links to treatment duration. Clinical guidelines for denosumab beyond 10 years are limited, emphasizing the need for careful monitoring. In certain scenarios, such as advanced chronic kidney disease, prolonged denosumab may be required to balance AE risks with fracture prevention benefits. Denosumab shows potential for long-term efficacy in augmenting BMD; however, monitoring for AEs is crucial to guide clinical decision-making effectively.

Osteoporosis management in post-menopausal women focuses on fracture prevention, with denosumab as a key therapeutic option. Despite its proven efficacy in reducing fracture risk and increasing bone mineral density (BMD) over 10 years, its long-term impact remains uncertain. We evaluated the literature on its efficacy and safety beyond the initial decade. Clinical trials and real-world studies confirm denosumab’s sustained efficacy, especially in lumbar spine BMD, with hip BMD stabilizing. Concerns about adverse events (AEs) like hypocalcemia and osteonecrosis of the jaw necessitate vigilant monitoring. Risks of atypical femoral fractures and malignancies also require attention, despite unclear links to treatment duration. Clinical guidelines for denosumab beyond 10 years are limited, emphasizing the need for careful monitoring. In certain scenarios, such as advanced chronic kidney disease, prolonged denosumab may be required to balance AE risks with fracture prevention benefits. Denosumab shows potential for long-term efficacy in augmenting BMD; however, monitoring for AEs is crucial to guide clinical decision-making effectively.

Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.