ArticleJMA journal2025
Exploring Undergraduate Medical Students' Perspectives towards Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Qualitative Study from India.
Article in JMA journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of generative AI in medical education in India: a systematic review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence-powered virtual standardized patients in teaching history-taking skills to medical students: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Adoption of generative AI chatbots among medical postgraduates at two universities in China: patterns, attitudes, and concerns.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Exploring health care learners' perceptions of AI integration in the curriculum: a survey tool and findings.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The term "artificial intelligence (AI)" refers to the development of systems that possess intellectual processes characteristic of humans, such as the ability to reason, discern meaning, generalize, and learn from experience. This study aimed to provide an overview of medical students' knowledge, perceptions, and concerns about AI in healthcare. Methods: This study utilized a qualitative approach, employing semi-structured interviews in focus groups of medical undergraduates to explore their perceptions, knowledge, and concerns about AI in healthcare. The interviews complied with the standards for reporting qualitative research set by the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ). Seven focus groups were formed, with an average size of 8-10 participants per group. Each group was diverse in terms of sex and year of study. Results: 156 participants responded to the survey, of whom 124 completed the questionnaires. Sixty-six undergraduate medical students consented to attend in-person focus groups for discussions. Four major themes are the advantages of AI in healthcare, education, and training in AI, future implications of AI, and ethical concerns, and sixteen subthemes emerged from this study's data analysis. Most students (57.7%) believed that artificial intelligence (AI) should be integrated into medical education. A substantial proportion (42.2%) of medical students demonstrated varying knowledge regarding the advantages of AI in healthcare. A significant number of students, 37.8%, articulated concerns regarding the future implications of AI; a minority of students, 22.7%, expressed ethical concerns regarding biases, privacy issues, security risks, and unequal access. Conclusions: Medical students generally view AI positively, recognizing its benefits in diagnosis and treatment. Many emphasized the need to integrate AI into medical education to prepare for future changes in healthcare. Future research should focus on developing evidence-based training programs and strategies to tackle these issues.
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.