ArticleBMC medical education2025
Perceptions of AI-based tools among polish medical university students.
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.
- Acceptance and use of GenAI among medical and health sciences students in Saudi Arabia: an extended TAM study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Whose Voice is it Anyway?Perspectives on 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the face of rapid technological progress and the growing presence of artificial intelligence (AI) in everyday life, it is increasingly important to examine how these tools can support or transform the way future healthcare professionals acquire knowledge and develop skills, both theoretically and practically.
methodsA cross-sectional survey using a subjective online survey using self-developed questionnaire in Polish and English was conducted between November 2024 and March 2025 among students of 14 Polish medical universities. The online questionnaire collected 778 valid responses and addressed experiences with AI tools, perceived benefits and challenges, quality and reliability of AI-generated content, and potential applications of AI in higher education.
resultsMost students reported experience with AI-powered tools, typically discovered independently through social media or peer communication rather than institutional promotion. Chatbots, especially ChatGPT, were the most commonly used form, applied for translation, data analysis, and literature search, contributing to the perceived time savings. While some respondents explored additional features, most relied on the free version. Although many verified AI-generated outputs against other sources, nearly all reported encountering incorrect information. Students identified accessibility and speed as the main advantages, whereas concerns focused mainly on data security, misuse, and uncontrolled technological development. Subscription preferences showed willingness to invest in accuracy and integration, though data protection was expected as a basic feature. DISCUSSION: Findings confirm that consciously and responsibly implemented AI-based systems can provide meaningful support in teaching and learning. Digital education and AI literacy play a key role, enabling students to take full advantage of new technologies while maintaining a critical perspective on their limitations and consequences.
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.