ArticleCureus2026
A Study to Assess the Awareness and Attitudes Towards Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools Among Medical Trainees and Practitioners.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into healthcare and medical education, offering support in clinical decision-making, learning, and information retrieval. However, its effective adoption depends on users' awareness, perception, and readiness. The study aimed to evaluate awareness and utilization of AI tools, assess perceptions, and identify facilitators and barriers influencing their acceptance among healthcare professionals and medical students. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2025 to January 2026 at a tertiary care center in Southern Rajasthan among 377 participants, including consultants, postgraduate trainees, and undergraduate students. A semi-structured, pre-validated, web-based questionnaire was used. Results: Among all, 327 (86.7%) participants were aware of AI bots, while only 51 (13.5%) had received formal training. Despite this, 302 (82%) reported using AI tools for academic and clinical purposes, with 93 (24.7%) using them daily. Common uses included clinical decision-making, studying medical concepts, and preparing presentations. Participants' primary concerns included accuracy (190, 50.4%), impact on critical thinking (235, 62.3%), and interpretation challenges (155, 41%). Major barriers identified were a lack of awareness, reliability issues, fear of academic misconduct, poor internet connectivity, and a lack of faculty endorsement. Facilitators included institutional guidelines, faculty training, workshops, mentorship, and curriculum integration. Conclusion: AI tools are widely used among healthcare professionals and students despite limited formal training. While perceived as useful and time-saving, concerns regarding reliability, ethics, and overdependence persist. Strengthening training, developing clear guidelines, and integrating AI into medical curricula are essential to ensure safe and effective utilization.
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.