Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35862401›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Artificial intelligence in medical education curriculum: An e-Delphi study for competencies.

S Ayhan Çalışkan, Kadir Demir, Ozan Karaca

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [Medical education and artificial intelligence: perspectives and ethical challenges].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Artificial Intelligence in Spiritual Care: Modified Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. AI Competency: Current State and Challenges.JMIR medical education · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Development of a Pilot Artificial Intelligence Education Curriculum for Hospital Staff.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Education: Applications, Ethics, and Future Perspectives.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025
    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

3 authors.

S Ayhan ÇalışkanDepartment of Medical Education, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0001-9714-6249
Kadir DemirDepartment of Management Information Systems, Izmir Democracy University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Izmir, Türkiye.
Ozan KaracaDepartment of Medical Education, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has affected our day-to-day in a great extent. Healthcare industry is one of the mainstream fields among those and produced a noticeable change in treatment and education. Medical students must comprehend well why AI technologies mediate and frame their decisions on medical issues. Formalizing of instruction on AI concepts can facilitate learners to grasp AI outcomes in association with their sensory perceptions and thinking in the dynamic and ambiguous reality of daily medical practice. The purpose of this study is to provide consensus on the competencies required by medical graduates to be ready for artificial intelligence technologies and possible applications in medicine and reporting the results. MATERIALS AND

methodsA three-round e-Delphi survey was conducted between February 2020 and November 2020. The Delphi panel accorporated experts from different backgrounds; (i) healthcare professionals/ academicians; (ii) computer and data science professionals/ academics; (iii) law and ethics professionals/ academics; and (iv) medical students. Round 1 in the Delphi survey began with exploratory open-ended questions. Responses received in the first round evaluated and refined to a 27-item questionnaire which then sent to the experts to be rated using a 7-point Likert type scale (1: Strongly Disagree-7: Strongly Agree). Similar to the second round, the participants repeated their assessments in the third round by using the second-round analysis. The agreement level and strength of the consensus was decided based on third phase results. Median scores was used to calculate the agreement level and the interquartile range (IQR) was used for determining the strength of the consensus.

resultsAmong 128 invitees, a total of 94 agreed to become members of the expert panel. Of them 75 (79.8%) completed the Round 1 questionnaire, 69/75 (92.0%) completed the Round 2 and 60/69 (87.0%) responded to the Round 3. There was a strong agreement on the 23 items and weak agreement on the 4 items.

conclusionsThis study has provided a consensus list of the competencies required by the medical graduates to be ready for AI implications that would bring new perspectives to medical education curricula. The unique feature of the current research is providing a guiding role in integrating AI into curriculum processes, syllabus content and training of medical students.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEducation, MedicalConsensusCurriculumDelphi TechniqueHumans

Identifiers

PMID35862401
PMCPMC9302857

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.