ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Mixed-methods study on GenAI Usage, dependence behaviors, and standardized application paths among Chinese medical students.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is reshaping medical education while fostering technological dependence among students. This study employed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. In the quantitative phase, an empirical analysis was conducted using survey data collected from a sample of 1295 Chinese medical students. The subsequent qualitative phase involved thematic analysis of interview transcripts from 16 medical educators to elucidate the underlying mechanisms. Findings reveal that GenAI was deeply integrated into medical students' daily learning routines. Tool selection favored general-purpose platforms, whereas specialist medical tools exhibited exceptionally low utilization rates. The clinical application possibilities remained below 20% across all situations. With an overall dependency score of 21.91 ± 6.75, over 60% of students reported dependence on GenAI. Multivariate linear regression analysis indicated performance expectancy, academic pressure, and social influence showed significant positive correlations with GenAI dependency. Conversely, critical thinking exhibited a significant negative correlation. Future medical education should strategically reposition GenAI as a "cognitive scaffold" by reinforcing critical thinking and establishing standardized usage guidelines to facilitate high-quality development.
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.