ArticleBMC medical education2026
From technological optimism to clinical realism: medical students' attitudes toward artificial ıntelligence and ıts career ımplications - a cross-sectional study at a Turkish Medical Faculty.
Article 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs AI integration in medicine becomes critical, this study evaluated medical students' attitudes and knowledge regarding AI and determined its impact on career specialization choices.
methodThis cross-sectional study used a voluntary, web-based convenience sample of 274 first- to fifth-year students at Gazi University Faculty of Medicine in Ankara, Türkiye (October-November 2025). Data were collected with a structured questionnaire incorporating the validated Perceptions on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (PAIM) scale.
resultsAlthough 74.5% reported no formal AI training, 52.6% expected AI to influence their specialization choice. Students who expected AI to shape their careers reported higher "Knowledge and Trust" (p = 0.018); the "Disadvantages and Risks" subscale did not differ significantly between career-impact expectation groups (p = 0.131). Among the three PAIM dimensions, only "Informed Self-Control" differed significantly by training phase, with clinical-phase students scoring lower than pre-clinical peers (p = 0.027). In multivariable regression, expecting AI to influence specialization was the only positive predictor of "Knowledge and Trust" (B = 0.16, p = 0.018), and formal training predicted higher "Informed Self-Control" (B = 0.28, p = 0.015), while older age predicted lower scores (B = - 0.05, p = 0.015). Both models were statistically significant but explained only a small share of variance (adjusted R2 = 0.02 and 0.04). Overall, 94.2% supported integrating AI into the medical curriculum.
conclusionThe findings highlight a marked gap between students' strong demand for AI training and the limited formal instruction currently provided. Cross-sectional differences across training phases may reflect a shift from early optimism toward a more cautious stance, although the design cannot establish such a developmental trajectory. Because more than half of students expected AI to affect their specialty choice, curricula should move beyond technical instruction to integrate ethical and clinical reasoning alongside AI literacy. These associations are exploratory and require confirmation in larger, longitudinal studies.
trial registrationThis study did not involve a clinical trial and therefore was not registered in a clinical trials registry.
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.