ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Beyond acceptance: bounded use of AI and VR in orthopedic education.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Background: The educational roles of artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual reality (VR) in orthopedic training remain insufficiently defined. Rather than examining acceptance alone, we investigated how students delineate trust boundaries, role allocation, and implementation priorities for bounded, faculty-supervised use of AI/VR in orthopedic education. Methods: We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional online survey among Years 4-8 students in the eight-year program of clinical medicine at Peking Union Medical College using a study-specific questionnaire informed by AI- and simulation-enhanced medical education. Approximately 300 students were invited; 56 valid responses were analyzed (response proportion, 18.7%). The questionnaire assessed prior exposure to AI/VR, acceptance, perceived value, trust-related attitudes, application preferences, substitution boundaries, and risk perceptions. Results: Overall, 83.9% of respondents supported or strongly supported further AI/VR integration in orthopedic teaching. Acceptance showed the highest composite score (4.25 ± 0.73), followed by perceived value (4.22 ± 0.61), educational trust (4.02 ± 0.49), and risk perception (3.80 ± 0.53). Support for AI-assisted tools and VR-based simulation was similarly high (4.29 ± 0.73 vs. 4.32 ± 0.83, Conclusion: Students supported AI/VR in orthopedic education, but within clear pedagogical and governance boundaries. Their responses suggest a preliminary, role-specific implementation model in which AI primarily enhances cognitive learning and VR primarily supports spatial-procedural training, under sustained faculty oversight. These perception-based findings should be tested in longitudinal or interventional curriculum studies.
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.