Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35521511›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Artificial intelligence and medical education: A global mixed-methods study of medical students' perspectives.

Hamza Ejaz, Hari McGrath, Brian Lh Wong, Andrew Guise, Tom Vercauteren, Jonathan Shapey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Hamza EjazNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7722-1774
Hari McGrathGKT School of Medical Education, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0037-4761
Brian Lh WongDepartment of International Health, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8709-5847
Andrew GuiseSchool of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, UK.
Tom VercauterenSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1794-0456
Jonathan ShapeySchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0291-348X
King's College London · GBMaastricht University · NLUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 203148/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Medical students, as clinicians and healthcare leaders of the future, are key stakeholders in the clinical roll-out of artificial intelligence-driven technologies. The authors aim to provide the first report on the state of artificial intelligence in medical education globally by exploring the perspectives of medical students. Methods: The authors carried out a mixed-methods study of focus groups and surveys with 128 medical students from 48 countries. The study explored knowledge around artificial intelligence as well as what students wished to learn about artificial intelligence and how they wished to learn this. A combined qualitative and quantitative analysis was used. Results: Support for incorporating teaching on artificial intelligence into core curricula was ubiquitous across the globe, but few students had received teaching on artificial intelligence. Students showed knowledge on the applications of artificial intelligence in clinical medicine as well as on artificial intelligence ethics. They were interested in learning about clinical applications, algorithm development, coding and algorithm appraisal. Hackathon-style projects and multidisciplinary education involving computer science students were suggested for incorporation into the curriculum. Conclusions: Medical students from all countries should be provided teaching on artificial intelligence as part of their curriculum to develop skills and knowledge around artificial intelligence to ensure a patient-centred digital future in medicine. This teaching should focus on the applications of artificial intelligence in clinical medicine. Students should also be given the opportunity to be involved in algorithm development. Students in low- and middle-income countries require the foundational technology as well as robust teaching on artificial intelligence to ensure that they can drive innovation in their healthcare settings.

Indexed as

automationDigitaleducationmachine learningmedicine

Identifiers

PMID35521511
PMCPMC9067043
OpenAlexW4229033576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.