ArticleBMC medical education2026
Student voices: synergising artificial and human intelligence in health science education.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a dire need to enhance health science education through technology to meet the demands of 21st-century education globally. This study explored the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Human Intelligence (HI) in health science education.
methodsGuided by the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge and Diffusion of Innovation frameworks, a descriptive qualitative single-case study was conducted within an interpretivist paradigm. Purposive sampling recruited six postgraduate and residency students with dual exposure to conventional and AI-assisted learning. Semi-structured interviews were thematically analysed.
resultsFindings revealed that students perceived AI as a valuable supplementary tool that enhanced diagnostic confidence, accelerated knowledge access, and simulated rare clinical scenarios. AI facilitated self-directed learning, structured clinical reasoning, and supported overburdened educators. However, participants cautioned against over-reliance, citing risks such as reduced critical thinking, algorithmic bias, and potential erosion of humanistic care. The adoption of AI was influenced by its relative advantages, alignment with learning preferences, and the possibility of low-risk experimentation; however, challenges arose from the complexity of prompt design and the lack of formal training.
conclusionThe study concluded that effective AI-HI integration requires AI literacy, ethical governance, and hybrid models combining technological efficiency with mentorship. Institutional investment in curricula, faculty development, and policy frameworks is essential to ensure responsible, context-sensitive adoption.
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.