Application of AI-Generated Content in Medical Education: Systematic Review of the Impact on Critical Thinking Abilities of Medical Students.

Background: With the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology, artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC) is increasingly widely applied in the field of medical education. Large language models, such as ChatGPT, are a prominent type of AIGC technology. Critical thinking is a core ability in medical education, but the impact of AIGC technology on the critical thinking ability of medical students remains unclear. Medical students are at a crucial stage in cultivating critical thinking, and the intervention of AIGC technology may have a profound impact on this process. Objective: This study aims to systematically review the impact of AIGC technology on the complex mechanisms affecting medical students' critical thinking abilities and build a corresponding strategic framework. The findings are intended to provide theoretical support and practical guidance for applying AIGC in medical education. Methods: This study followed 2020 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, with the retrieval scope limited to English studies published between November 2022 and June 2025. Through the PubMed database, combined with the search methods of subject terms and free words, relevant studies involving the impact of AIGC on the critical thinking of medical students were screened for using keywords such as "AIGC," "medical students," and "critical thinking." Two independent reviewers screened and evaluated the literature, and ultimately conducted a qualitative analysis based on the common themes extracted from the literature. Results: AIGC technology in medical education is 2-fold. First, AIGC's powerful information capabilities provide abundant learning resources and efficient tools. This accelerates knowledge acquisition and broadens learning scope. Second, overreliance on AIGC may lead to mental inertia, weaken critical thinking skills, and cause academic integrity issues among students. Research has found that strategies such as customized AIGC tools, virtual standardized patients, new models of resource integration, and proactive assessment of AI limitations can effectively make up for the deficiencies of AIGC in cultivating high-level critical thinking, helping medical students maintain and enhance their critical thinking and problem-solving abilities. Conclusions: AIGC technology application in medical education needs to carefully weigh the pros and cons. By optimizing the design and usage of AIGC tools and combining them with the guidance and supervision of educators, they can be transformed into powerful tools for promoting the development of critical thinking among medical students. Future research should further expand the scope of study, optimize research methods, pay attention to individual differences, track long-term effects, and deeply explore the influence of ethical and cultural factors to more comprehensively assess the application potential and challenges of AIGC technology in medical education.