Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37946176›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

AI in medical education: medical student perception, curriculum recommendations and design suggestions.

Qianying Li, Yunhao Qin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. AI In Leukemia Diagnostics: Complementing the Pathologist's Role.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Qianying LiAntai College of economics and management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Yunhao QinDepartment of Orthopedics, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. yunhao_qin@163.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 8180090624
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical AI has transformed modern medicine and created a new environment for future doctors. However, medical education has failed to keep pace with these advances, and it is essential to provide systematic education on medical AI to current medical undergraduate and postgraduate students. To address this issue, our study utilized the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model to identify key factors that influence the acceptance and intention to use medical AI. We collected data from 1,243 undergraduate and postgraduate students from 13 universities and 33 hospitals, and 54.3% reported prior experience using medical AI. Our findings indicated that medical postgraduate students have a higher level of awareness in using medical AI than undergraduate students. The intention to use medical AI is positively associated with factors such as performance expectancy, habit, hedonic motivation, and trust. Therefore, future medical education should prioritize promoting students' performance in training, and courses should be designed to be both easy to learn and engaging, ensuring that students are equipped with the necessary skills to succeed in their future medical careers.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalEducation, Medical, UndergraduateStudents, MedicalCurriculumHumansPerceptionArtificial IntelligenceMedical AIMedical studentsMedical trainingUTAUT2

Identifiers

PMID37946176
PMCPMC10637014

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.