Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40111951›Full record

ReviewATS scholar2025

Bridging Artificial Intelligence and Medical Education: Navigating the Alignment Paradox.

Laurah Turner, Michelle I Knopp, Eneida A Mendonca, Sanjay Desai

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ATS scholar, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Laurah TurnerDepartment of Medical Education.ORCID 0000-0002-4567-1313
Michelle I KnoppDepartment of Biostatistics, Health Informatics, and Data Science, and.ORCID 0000-0002-2584-1039
Eneida A MendoncaDivision of Biomedical Informatics and.ORCID 0000-0003-4297-9221
Sanjay DesaiAmerican Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into medical education presents both unprecedented opportunities and significant challenges, epitomized by the "alignment paradox." This paradox asks: How do we ensure AI systems remain aligned with our educational goals? For instance, AI could create highly personalized learning pathways, but this might conflict with educators' intentions for structured skill development. This paper proposes a framework to address this paradox, focusing on four key principles: ethics, robustness, interpretability, and scalable oversight. We examine the current landscape of AI in medical education, highlighting its potential to enhance learning experiences, improve clinical decision making, and personalize education. We review ethical considerations, emphasize the importance of robustness across diverse healthcare settings, and present interpretability as crucial for effective human-AI collaboration. For example, AI-based feedback systems like i-SIDRA enable real-time, actionable feedback, enhancing interpretability while reducing cognitive overload. The concept of scalable oversight is introduced to maintain human control while leveraging AI's autonomy. We outline strategies for implementing this oversight, including directable behaviors and human-AI collaboration techniques. With this road map, we aim to support the medical education community in responsibly harnessing AI's power in its educational systems.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEducation, MedicalHumansartificial intelligenceeducational technologyethicsmachine learningmedical education

Identifiers

PMID40111951
PMCPMC12219792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.