ArticleBMC medical education2026
AI in medical and dentistry education: perspectives from international students, educators and physicians.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is being integrated into higher education in an increasing rate, offering opportunities for personalized learning, efficiency, and enhanced engagement. However, most research focuses on single-institution or national contexts and primarily examines medical students through quantitative methods. Little is known about how international medical and dentistry students, educators, and practising physicians perceive and experience AI in medical and dentistry education. This study addresses this gap by capturing the perspectives of these diverse stakeholders, providing a comprehensive view of AI adoption, readiness, and ethical considerations across international contexts.
methodsThis cross-institutional mixed-methods study combined survey and interview data to explore perspectives on AI in medical and dentistry education. An online questionnaire was distributed to medical and dentistry students at the University of Pécs Medical School, Hungary and Oslo New University College, Norway. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with educators (n = 6) and physicians (n = 3) in October, 2024. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential analyses to examine differences across participant groups and qualitative data were examined thematically and comparatively across educators and practising physicians.
resultsA total of 344 medical and dentistry students completed the survey. The majority of students (75.3%) reported that AI tools enhanced their learning and found chatbots beneficial for assignments (73.5%). AI was viewed as helpful for understanding complex concepts (65.1%) and managing study time (42.1%). However, concerns included data privacy (48.9%), reduced critical thinking (58.7%), and over-reliance on AI (74.7%). Comparative analysis revealed differences in emphasis across stakeholder groups, with students focusing on practical learning benefits and educators and practising physicians prioritizing long-term professional and ethical implications. Across groups, there was consensus that AI should supplement but not replace traditional and clinical teaching.
conclusionsAI is perceived as a valuable supportive tool in medical and dentistry education, particularly by students, while educators and practising physicians adopt a more cautious stance emphasizing ethical, pedagogical, and clinical considerations. Effective integration of AI requires balanced implementation, including AI literacy for students, targeted faculty development, and clear institutional and ethical frameworks to safeguard critical thinking and professional competencies.
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.