ArticlePloS one2026
Postgraduate students' perceptions of artificial intelligence integration in research: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- AI-associated academic writing anxiety in AI-assisted contexts: evidence from Chinese EFL postgraduate students.Frontiers in psychology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT are increasingly used in academic research, yet evidence on postgraduate students' perceptions remains limited in non-Western and health-professional contexts. Understanding how students perceive AI's benefits, risks, and ethical implications is essential for informing institutional research policies.
methodsThis cross-sectional case study surveyed 267 master's students enrolled in nursing and health profession programs at Northern Border University in Arar, Saudi Arabia. Data were collected between October 1 and November 15, 2025, using a validated 54-item questionnaire that assessed perceived benefits, perceived risks, privacy concerns, mistrust in AI, performance anxiety, social bias, regulatory matters, liability issues, and intention to adopt AI tools. Multiple linear regression with heteroscedasticity-robust (HC3) standard errors was used to identify predictors of AI adoption intention.
resultsMost participants (85.0%) reported prior use of AI tools, predominantly ChatGPT. Perceived benefits were the strongest predictor of intention to adopt AI for research purposes (β = 0.588, p < 0.001). Privacy concerns were positively associated with adoption intention (β = 0.230, p < 0.001), suggesting informed and critical engagement rather than resistance. Female students reported higher adoption intention than males (β = 0.137, p = 0.002), while prior publication experience was negatively associated with intention (β = -0.089, p = 0.036). Demographic variables such as age, specialty, and marital status were not significant predictors. The adoption-intention model demonstrated moderate explanatory power (adjusted R2 = 0.560).
conclusionsAmong nursing and health profession master's students at a regional Saudi university, findings indicate pragmatic optimism toward AI integration in academic research, driven primarily by perceived benefits alongside heightened ethical and privacy awareness. Privacy concerns appear to reflect critical literacy rather than barriers to 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.