ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Internal Medicine Physicians' Reflections on AI Tools for Research Tasks in Turkey: A Qualitative Descriptive Study Following a Brief Educational Session.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study explored internal medicine physicians' perceptions of AI tools used for research tasks (eg, literature searching, reference management, scholarly writing support, and visualization) following a brief educational session. Methods: This qualitative descriptive study was conducted with internal medicine physicians who attended a structured and interactive educational session entitled "Artificial Intelligence on the Path to Academia" delivered as part of the 4th National Congress of Internal Medicine. Following the session, individual semi structured interviews were carried out with the participants. Interviews were conducted within 24 hours after the session and documented as written field notes. The study design, conduct, and reporting were planned in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist for qualitative research. The data were systematically analyzed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis approach. Results: Participants reported heterogeneous and generally limited baseline familiarity with AI-based research task tools. After the session, narratives shifted toward viewing AI as a supportive resource used conditionally under human oversight. Participants described increased intention to use these tools, while concerns regarding ethics, reliability, and academic originality remained salient. A clear need emerged for practical, structured training with a well-defined ethical framework. Conclusion: Brief educational sessions may help elicit short-term reflections and clarify perceived opportunities and boundaries for using AI tools in research-related academic workflows; the effectiveness of brief interventions remains uncertain and warrants longitudinal evaluation.
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.