ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Principles for medical students' responsible use of generative AI: a student-partnered Delphi study.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the widespread use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in undergraduate medical education (UGME), this study aimed to develop a set of consensus-based principles for the responsible and ethical use of GenAI, established by medical students and faculty and further validated by international medical and artificial intelligence (AI) experts.
methodsA four-round modified Delphi process, an in-person idea-generation round, two structured rating rounds, and an external expert validation round were conducted between May 2025 and February 2026. The panel included medical students (n = 13) and medical professors (n = 2) in the first three rounds, and international experts in medical education and AI (n = 9) in the final round. In Round 1, an open-ended question yielded 37 potential principles. In Rounds 2 and 3, these items were rated using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) with space for written comments; median scores and interquartile ranges were used to assess the strength of agreement against predefined decision rules, and the principles were retained, reworded, consolidated, or excluded accordingly. In Round 4, the near-final principles were validated by 9 international experts in AI medical education, AI ethics, AI technology education, or senior medical educators involved with AI curricula.
resultsThe process identified 14 consensus-based principles for the use of GenAI in UGME.
conclusionGiven the swift adoption of GenAI in medical education, students need explicit guidance for ethical and responsible use. We established an internationally informed, expert-validated set of principles for medical students' use of GenAI through a student-partner Delphi study with external validation by a multinational expert panel. Institutions developing GenAI guidelines may adapt this framework for implementation in local educational contexts.
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.