ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Faculty perspectives on artificial intelligence's adoption in the health sciences education: a multicentre survey.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI Integration in Undergraduate Medical Education: Qualitative Study of Faculty Perspectives in the United Arab Emirates.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Dual dimensions of artificial intelligence use among medical academia: related knowledge, attitudes and ethical concerns, a national survey, 2025.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Faculty Perspectives on AI Integration in Anatomy Education in the United Arab Emirates: Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Medical Education in LMICs: A Narrative Review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
- Revolutionizing medical physiology education: a narrative review of the transition from traditional classrooms to artificial intelligence.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Building bridges between public health and computer science departments in academia to foster artificial intelligence knowledge and skills for the digital age.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The integration of artificial intelligence technology into healthcare education has been hampered by a number of difficulties. This study aimed to investigate the faculty's familiarity and perception towards AI applications in medical education concerning various demographic and professional characteristics. Methods: This observational study used a validated questionnaire distributed to health sciences colleges' faculty in Saudi Arabia from January 1 to April 30, 2025. Results: Knowledge rates among the 293 participating faculty were moderate across all groups with an overall average of 58.9%. Knowledge varied significantly with increasing years of experience and academic qualification ( Discussion: This study shows that there are still significant gaps in general knowledge, formal training, and ethical understanding, despite the supportive perception score of the health science faculty towards AI integration in medical education. Despite a general lack of knowledge and a lack of curricular content on AI applications, the results show considerable support for incorporating AI into medical education. Institutional readiness for the integration of AI in medical education is strongly influenced by obstacles, including a lack of knowledge, a shortage of skilled faculty, and fear of career threat.
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.