ArticleCureus2024
A Pilot Study of Medical Student Opinions on Large Language Models.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Medical Students' Attitudes, Perceptions, and Self-Reported Familiarity With AI in Health Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR medical education · 2026Pooled it
- AI Tool Use Among Osteopathic Medical Students: Pilot Digital Diary Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Observational
- Development and Validation of the ATRAI Questionnaire to Assess Attitudes Toward Large Language Models in Clinical Setting (ATRAI-LLM).European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Integration in U.S. Healthcare Professional Degree Programs: A Rapid Scoping Review.Research square · 2026Article
- Deciphering AI-chatbots utilization in clinical practice, research and education among Chinese medical students in generative AI era: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- ChatGPT versus UpToDate in Preclinical Medical Education: Cross-Sectional Analysis Using Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency Cosine Similarity.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Medical Student Experiences With ChatGPT: National Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- A scoping review of the use of generative artificial intelligence tools in health profession education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) has long garnered significant interest in the medical field. Large language models (LLMs) have popularized the use of AI for the public through chatbots such as ChatGPT and have become an easily accessible and recognizable medical resource for medical students. Here, we investigate how medical students are currently utilizing LLM-based tools throughout medical education and examine medical student perception of these tools. Methods A cross-sectional survey was administered to current medical students at the University of Florida College of Medicine (UFCOM) in January 2024 discussing the utilization of AI and LLM tools and perspectives on the current and future role of AI in medicine. Results All 102 respondents reported having heard of LLM-based chatbots such as ChatGPT, Bard, Bing Chat, and Claude. Sixty-nine percent (69%; 70/102) of respondents reported having used them for medical-related purposes at least once a month. Seventy-seven point one percent (77.1%; 54/70) reported the information provided by them to be very accurate or somewhat accurate, and 80% (55/70) reported that they were likely to continue using them in their future medical practice. Those with some baseline understanding of and exposure to AI were 3.26 (p=0.020) and 4.30 (p=0.002) times more likely to have used an LLM-based chatbot, respectively, and 5.06 (p=0.021) and 3.38 (p=0.039) times more likely to cross-check information obtained from them, respectively, compared to those with little to no baseline understanding or exposure. Furthermore, those with some exposure to AI in medical school were 2.70 (p=0.039) and 4.61 (p=0.0004) times more likely to trust AI with clinical decision-making currently and in the next 5 years, respectively, than those with little to no exposure. Those who had used an LLM-based chatbot were 4.31 (p=0.019) times more likely to trust AI with clinical decision-making currently compared to those who had not used one. Conclusion LLM-based chatbots, such as ChatGPT, are not only making their way into the medical student repertoire of study resources but are also being utilized in the setting of patient care and research. Medical students who participated in the survey generally had a positive perception of LLM-based chatbots and reported they were likely to continue using them in the future. Previous AI knowledge and exposure correlated with more conscientious use of these tools such as cross-checking information. Combined with our finding that all respondents believed AI should be taught in the medical curriculum, our study highlights a key opportunity in medical education to acclimate medical students to AI now.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.