SynthesisBMC medical education2026
Is it time to introduce an artificial intelligence curriculum in undergraduate medical education? medical students' perspectives: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical education, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly transforming healthcare systems, its systematic integration into undergraduate medical education (UME) remains limited. Despite widespread recognition of AI's potential to enhance clinical practice, AI-related competencies are still inadequately embedded in most medical curricula, even though medical students generally express positive attitudes toward AI.
objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes the current literature on medical students' attitudes toward teaching about AI and clarifies the challenges, opportunities, and potential approaches for incorporating AI into the UME curriculum. These findings underscore the need for competency-based AI integration in UME worldwide.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic literature review was conducted using the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases between January 2000 and February 2025, revealing 26 studies (n = 20,963 students) assessing attitudes and challenges related to learning AI. Meta-analysis calculated the pooled proportions of student support. A random-effects model with Freeman-Tukey transformation was used; heterogeneity and bias were assessed via standard statistical methods.
resultsThe systematic review included 26 studies (n = 20,963 medical students). Meta-analysis revealed that 16,278 participants (78.0%) held positive attitudes towards AI curriculum integration. Despite this strong support, a significant 'optimism-competence gap' was identified: while 17,420 participants (83.1%) agreed on the necessity for AI training, only 7,630 participants (36.4%) felt confident in applying AI in clinical practice. Subgroup analyses confirmed consistent support across geographic regions. The analysis indicated extreme heterogeneity (I² = 98.5%). The primary implementation challenges, derived from the systematic review, were curricular overcrowding (reported in 13 out of 19 studies, 68%), lack of faculty expertise (in 12 out of 23 studies, 52%), and ethical concerns (in 9 out of 22 studies, 41%).
conclusionA standardized AI curriculum is urgently needed to bridge the optimism-competence gap. Prioritizing faculty training, interdisciplinary collaboration, and ethical frameworks will ensure that future physicians can harness AI's potential while mitigating risks. Our findings, particularly the quantified optimism-competence gap and the influence of unmeasured institutional factors, provide a new evidence base for developing these prioritized interventions.
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.