ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Public Perceptions of AI in Medicine and Implications for Future Medical Education: Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical practice is contingent on public trust. This trust often depends on physician oversight, yet a significant gap exists between the need for AI-competent physicians and the current state of medical education. While the perspectives of students and experts on this gap are known, the views of the US general public remain largely unquantified. Objective: This study aimed to assess US public perceptions regarding AI in medicine and the corresponding emergent needs for medical education. We specifically sought to quantify public trust in different diagnostic scenarios, concerns about physician overreliance on AI, support for mandatory AI education, and priorities for the future focus of medical training. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of adults in the United States in November 2025. Participants (N=524) were recruited via SurveyMonkey Audience. We calculated descriptive statistics, frequencies, proportions (percentages), and 95% CIs for all main survey items. Results: A total of 524 participants completed the survey. Most (n=329, 62.8%; 95% CI 58.6%-66.9%) placed the most trust in a physician's diagnosis based on their expertise alone; only 7.8% (n=41; 95% CI 5.5%-10.1%) trusted an AI-first diagnostic model. Trust was highly contingent on training: 93.9% (n=492) of participants rated formal physician training on AI limitations as "essential" or "very important." Widespread concern about physician overreliance on AI was reported, with 81.1% (n=425) being "very concerned" or "extremely concerned." Consequently, 85.1% (n=446) agreed or strongly agreed that training on AI use, ethics, and limitations should be mandatory in medical school. When asked about future educational priorities, 70.2% (n=368; 95% CI 66.3%-74.1%) believed that medical education should focus on human-centered skills (eg, empathy and communication) over clinical skills. Conclusions: The US public expressed conditional trust in medical AI, strongly preferring physician-led and critically supervised models. These findings reveal a clear public mandate for medical education reform. The public expects future physicians to be mandatorily trained to appraise AI, understand its limitations, and refocus their professional development on the human-centered skills that technology cannot replace.
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.