ArticleScientific reports2026
Attitudes of medical and life sciences university students and postdoctoral fellows toward AI chatbots in education: an international cross-sectional survey.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence chatbots (AICs) are advanced systems capable of generating and processing human-like text, and are being increasingly integrated in various fields, including education. Despite their potential to significantly impact learning, little is known about university students’ and postdoctoral fellows’ (US&PD) views on AICs in educational settings. This study investigated the familiarity, perceptions, and factors influencing adoption of AICs by US&PDs in the life and medical sciences. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey. Recruitment involved two approaches: (1) using R script on PubMeD metadata to extract contact details of corresponding authors with recent MEDLINE-indexed publications, and (2) collecting publicly listed contact information of program administrators from the top 50 global, English-speaking universities, as ranked by the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) University World Rankings. Both authors and administrators were contacted and requested to forward the survey to US&PDs. The survey was administered via SurveyMonkey from February 2 to March 18, 2024, with two reminder emails sent between February 14 and 26, 2024. A total of 1209 responses from 73 countries were analyzed. Most respondents identified as female (62.07%) and were enrolled in doctoral (40.48%) or master’s programs (17.55%). Over 63% were familiar with AICs, with ChatGPT being the most used (60.3%). While many recognized the educational value of AICs, concerns about reliability and integration into academia persisted. Calls for more training and institutional support were common. The study underscores the potential and challenges of AICs in education. While enthusiasm exists, significant concerns remain about their implementation, requiring targeted training and policy development.
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.