Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41250109›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: an updated scoping review.

Jennifer Simoni, Judith Urtubia-Fernandez, Elisa Mengual, Diglio A Simoni, Montserrat Royo, Diego Egaña-Yin, Oliver L A Hertog, Lourdes López-Ortiz, Adrián Muñoz-Tomás, Paula Santiago-Martínez and 2 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Jennifer SimoniMedical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. jsimoni@unav.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-7486-9503
Judith Urtubia-FernandezFaculty of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Elisa MengualDept. of Pathology, Anatomy and Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0493-5167
Diglio A SimoniInstitute of Culture and Society, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-8726-3755
Montserrat RoyoLibrary Services, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2124-9422
Diego Egaña-YinFaculty of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Oliver L A HertogFaculty of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Lourdes López-OrtizFaculty of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-9800-1796
Adrián Muñoz-TomásFaculty of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Paula Santiago-MartínezFaculty of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-1115-3334
Adrián VahamakiFaculty of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4897-3624
José Luis PereiraMedical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5974-7833

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe irrevocable alteration of medical education due to widespread access to large language models (LLMs) in 2022, and the concomitant surge in AI-related literature, has prompted us to update the evolving impact of AI on undergraduate medical education (UGME).

methodsThe scoping review adhered to the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. A literature search was conducted in April 2024 on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, ERIC, and Google Scholar using the terms "UGME", "medical students", "AI", "NLP", "ML", "ChatGPT", and "LLM", and included publications that appeared from January 2020 to April 2024. The inclusion criteria were UGME and AI-related topics. The exclusion criteria were postgraduate education, continuing medical education, and non-AI technologies.

resultsAfter screening 3,238 identified publications, 310 were ultimately included in the review. One hundred sixty-one publications (52%) related to AI use solely in UGME appeared in eight months between the time the last general medical education scoping review on AI took place and the current study. The use of AI is rapidly increasing in UGME, both in basic and clinical courses, with applications ranging from autonomous tutoring, self-assessment, and simulation-based learning to assessment generation and grading, clinical assessment, procedural skills evaluation, and predictive analytics, among others. No publications assessed AI's impact on critical thinking or clinical reasoning in medical students. While students strongly demand the acquisition of AI literacy during UGME, and some institutions have begun integrating AI into their curricula, there is neither a standardized approach for doing so nor a consensus on AI competencies or ethical frameworks in UGME.

conclusionsThis review highlights the dramatic increase in the use of AI in UGME, presenting both benefits and challenges. While AI can enhance learning experiences, the best evidence for its implementation is unclear and requires, as key priorities, the definition of AI competencies, pedagogical methods, and ethical guidelines. Further research is needed to assess the impact of AI on ethics, empathy, critical thinking, and clinical reasoning. Faculty development in AI is vital, as is the need for collaborative and international endeavors.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEducation, Medical, UndergraduateCurriculumHumansAI competenciesArtificial intelligence (AI)Large language models (LLMs)Scoping reviewUndergraduate medical education (UGME)

Identifiers

PMID41250109
PMCPMC12625756

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.