Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41252190›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2025

How AI Is Transforming Medical Education: Bibliometric Analysis.

Youyang Wang, Chuheng Chang, Wen Shi, Huiting Liu, Xiaoming Huang, Yang Jiao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Youyang Wang *Department of General Practice (General Internal Medicine), Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0107-4530
Chuheng Chang *Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5012-3541
Wen ShiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5770-5672
Huiting LiuDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4916-1409
Xiaoming HuangDepartment of General Practice (General Internal Medicine), Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2978-6484
Yang JiaoDepartment of General Practice (General Internal Medicine), Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3957-3829

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into medical education. As AI technologies continue to evolve, they are expected to enable more sophisticated student tutoring, performance evaluation, and reforms of curricula. However, medical education entities have been ill-prepared to embrace this technological revolution, and there is anxiety concerning its potential harm to the community.

objectiveTo explore research trends in the field and identify future directions for AI-enabled medical education, we conducted a systematic bibliometric analysis focusing on temporal trajectories in the field.

methodsDocuments were collected from the Web of Science and Scopus databases covering the period from 2000 to 2024. A multistep search strategy combining information retrieval, a definitive journal list, and cocitation analysis was used to identify relevant publications. Journal and author impact were assessed using both publication and citation metrics. Research trends and hot spots were examined through citation burst detection, frequency analysis, and co-occurrence networks, with a color gradient used to indicate the average occurrence year of keywords. The citation lineage structure of the field was evaluated using a k-means clustering-based analysis of cocitation networks to trace influential references.

resultsOur analysis revealed a significant increase in publications since 2021, with foundational works emerging as early as 2019. Influential journals in this domain included JMIR Medical Education, Anatomical Sciences Education, and Medical Education. The evolving research trajectory exhibited a shift from conventional computer-assisted learning tools toward generative AI platforms. Earlier applications of AI in medical education were predominantly concentrated at the undergraduate level, indicating substantial potential for expansion into graduate and continuing medical education. Furthermore, limited cocitation connections were observed between recent generative AI research and conventional medical AI studies, and investigations into medical students' attitudes toward generative AI remain scarce.

conclusionsThere are critical needs for (1) interdisciplinary studies that intentionally integrate generative AI with foundational medical AI work and (2) involving medical educators and students in AI development. Future research should focus on building theoretical frameworks and collaborative projects that connect these currently separate domains to foster a more cohesive knowledge base.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBibliometricsEducation, MedicalCurriculumHumansAIartificial intelligencebibliometric analysisgenerative AIgenerative artificial intelligencemedical educationresearch trends

Identifiers

PMID41252190
PMCPMC12673300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.