We read with great interest the recent qualitative study by Yildirim et al. exploring intensive care nurses' perceptions toward artificial intelligence technologies (Yildirim et al. 2026). The authors offer a timely and meaningful contribution to the ongoing integration of artificial intelligence in critical care, an environment increasingly characterized by technological complexity and evolving modes of clinical reasoning (Jiang et al. 2017; Topol 2019). Their identification of six thematic domains provides a clear and valuable descriptive structure; however, several methodological and conceptual considerations may further strengthen the interpretive depth and clinical relevance of the work (O'Brien et al. 2014). A central insight emerging from the study is the epistemic asymmetry between participants' limited understanding of artificial intelligence and the sophistication of the concerns they articulate (Yildirim et al. 2026). Nurses appear to navigate this domain with a degree of conceptual ambiguity, at times conflating routine automated systems with artificial intelligence, a pattern consistent with early phases of technological adoption in healthcare (Jiang et al. 2017; Bodur et al. 2025). At the same time, they express nuanced concerns regarding autonomy, accountability, and ethical responsibility, suggesting that their perceptions may be shaped not only by direct experience but also by broader sociotechnical narratives surrounding artificial intelligence (Topol 2019; Bodur et al. 2025). In qualitative inquiry, the strength of interpretation depends on the alignment between lived experience and attributed meaning; when the object of perception is not clearly delineated, there is a risk that findings reflect constructed understandings rather than situated clinical realities (O'Brien et al. 2014). From a methodological standpoint, the use of snowball sampling may have contributed to a degree of convergence in participants' perspectives. Shared professional networks can subtly constrain variability and reinforce prevailing interpretations, particularly in emerging and rapidly evolving fields such as artificial intelligence (O'Brien et al. 2014). Although the authors appropriately sought diversity, the limited attention to disconfirming cases may restrict analytic depth, which remains a key dimension of rigor in qualitative research addressing complex phenomena (O'Brien et al. 2014). The themes related to professional autonomy and the irreplaceability of humanistic care resonate with a growing body of literature emphasizing the enduring importance of relational and ethical dimensions in nursing practice (Topol 2019; Bodur et al. 2025). However, interpreting these findings within a strict dichotomy between human care and technology risks oversimplifying the realities of contemporary clinical environments. Emerging evidence from critical care suggests that decision making is increasingly shaped by dynamic interactions among clinicians, technological systems, and data infrastructures, giving rise to a distributed and context-sensitive cognitive ecology (Bellini et al. 2022; Bignami et al. 2023). In this perspective, artificial intelligence should not be understood as a substitute for nursing practice, but as a transformative component that enhances clinical reasoning while remaining inherently dependent on human judgment, ethical responsibility, and relational care (Jiang et al. 2017; Bellini et al. 2022). While artificial intelligence may significantly support clinical decision-making, it cannot replace the relational, ethical, and interpretive dimensions that define nursing practice. Rather than diminishing the role of the clinician, artificial intelligence reconfigures and, in many respects, amplifies the importance of human expertise within technologically mediated care environments. A conceptual synthesis of these dynamics is presented in Figure 1, which integrates epistemic, clinical, and educational dimensions of artificial intelligence in intensive care. The framework illustrates how knowledge, judgment, and trust are progressively reshaped within technologically mediated environments. A scientific metaphor may further illuminate this transformation. Artificial intelligence can be conceptualized as a high-sensitivity biosensor that amplifies weak physiological signals otherwise difficult to detect (Jiang et al. 2017; Topol 2019). Such amplification has the potential to enhance clinical interpretation by improving the signal-to-noise ratio. Yet, in the absence of appropriate calibration and interpretive competence, it may also introduce additional uncertainty, fostering misplaced confidence or inappropriate reliance on algorithmic outputs (Jiang et al. 2017; Bodur et al. 2025). In this sense, the most critical issue is not solely limited knowledge, but the risk of inadequately calibrated trust in artificial intelligence systems (Topol 2019; Bodur et al. 2025). This interpretation is consistent with evidence from intensive care medicine indicating that advanced technologies do not replace clinical reasoning, but rather redistribute its boundaries and associated responsibilities (Bellini et al. 2022; Bignami et al. 2023). Artificial intelligence introduces new forms of epistemic mediation, whereby algorithmic outputs influence clinical decisions while remaining partially opaque, thereby raising fundamental questions regarding accountability, transparency, and trust (Jiang et al. 2017; Topol 2019; Bignami et al. 2023). The challenge, therefore, lies not in determining whether nurses trust artificial intelligence, but in understanding how such trust is constructed, calibrated, and critically sustained within complex clinical systems (Topol 2019; Bodur et al. 2025). The implications extend beyond the need for structured education, appropriately highlighted by the authors (Yildirim et al. 2026). Rather, the findings point toward a broader requirement for epistemological integration within nursing practice, in which clinicians are supported not only in the use of artificial intelligence tools but also in the critical interpretation of their outputs and limitations (Topol 2019; Borges do Nascimento et al. 2023). This aligns with emerging evidence on digital health adoption, which underscores the importance of competencies, organizational support, and reflective engagement with technology (Bodur et al. 2025; Borges do Nascimento et al. 2023). Without such integration, artificial intelligence risks amplifying uncertainty rather than meaningfully enhancing clinical insight (Jiang et al. 2017; Topol 2019). In conclusion, Yildirim et al. provide an important contribution to the understanding of nurses' perceptions of artificial intelligence in intensive care (Yildirim et al. 2026). Future research would benefit from theoretically informed approaches capable of capturing the complexity of human and technological interaction, thereby advancing a more refined understanding of how artificial intelligence reshapes clinical reasoning and professional responsibility (Topol 2019; O'Brien et al. 2014; Bellini et al. 2022). Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly shape the future of healthcare; however, it is the human clinician who will continue to define its meaning, limits, and responsibility in practice (Jiang et al. 2017; Topol 2019). Domenico Cardamone: conceptualization, writing – original draft. Mattia Madeo: conceptualization, writing – review and editing. Zaninni Caroleo: writing – review and editing. Stefano Fresilli: writing – review and editing. Andrea Bruni: writing – review and editing, supervision. The authors have nothing to report. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Cardamone et al. (Tue,) studied this question.