ArticleBMC medical education2025
Application and ethical implication of generative artificial intelligence in medical education: a cross-sectional study among critical care academic physicians in China.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The "DeepSeek effect" and the adoption-integration gap of generative artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a national online convenience cross-sectional survey of academic critical care physicians in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence in Health Informatics Education: A Qualitative Exploration of Student Engagement, Perceived Educational Implications, and Ethical Considerations.Advances in medical education and practice · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study explored the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) by Chinese academic physicians in clinical teaching activities within standardized residency training (TA-SRT) in critical care settings, and their awareness of ethical issues associated with GAI. The findings of this study will guide the rationale for GAI applications and sustainable integration into medical education.
methodsThis nationwide cross-sectional study utilized a self-administered questionnaire distributed via the Wenjuanxing platform to attending and higher-ranking physicians in critical care medicine departments across China who were involved in TA-SRT. Data were collected from December 2024 to January 2025.
resultsAmong 456 enrolled academic physicians, 64.7% used GAI in clinical medical work and 33.1% used it in TA-SRT (GAI-User). GAI-Users reported higher training levels of GAI (p < 0.0001) and were more supportive of increased GAI training (p = 0.0368 and 0.0064, respectively). They also showed greater trust in the GAI judgment (p < 0.0001) and optimism regarding its application. Top GAI uses included querying teaching content (79.5%) and creating teaching materials (65.6%). Over 50% of physicians were aware of ethical issues, with “over-reliance” (85.7%) and “data privacy” (84.0%) being major concerns. Most agreed ethics should be part of GAI education (94.3%).
conclusionsAlthough awareness of GAI is growing among Chinese academic physicians in critical care, its practical use in clinical teaching remains limited. These academic physicians acknowledge GAI’s potential to enhance clinical teaching quality and promote educational equity. To foster broader adoption, cultivating the clinical application skills of GAI is essential to lay the foundation for its educational use. Additionally, GAI training programs should integrate both practical application skills and ethical education, which are widely supported by academic physicians, to guide the rationale and sustainable integration of GAI into medical education.
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.