ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Use and Perceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools Among First-Year Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causal Inference, Statistical Assumptions, and Natural-Language-Processing Artefacts in Evaluating Medical Students' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence [Letter].Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Causal Inference, Statistical Assumptions, and Natural-Language-Processing Artefacts in Evaluating Medical students' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence [Response to Letter].Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
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
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, particularly large language models, are increasingly integrated into medical education. However, little is known about how early medical students perceive their educational value, reliability, and ethical implications. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among first-year students in the Undergraduate (MD) and Graduate-Entry (GEMD) Medical Programmes at the University of Nicosia, Cyprus. A total of 102 students participated across three cohorts: MD2030 (n = 44), MD2031 (n = 46), and GEMD2030 (n = 12). The questionnaire explored awareness and use of AI tools, perceived benefits and risks, trust in AI-generated medical information, ethical concerns, and attitudes toward AI in medical education. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, while open-ended responses underwent sentiment analysis and topic modelling. Results: Awareness of AI tools was nearly universal (93-100%), with ChatGPT use reported by 87-100% of students. Regular use ranged from 70.5% in MD2030 to 100% in GEMD2030. Students perceived AI as a valuable supplementary learning tool (mean Likert scores 4.07-4.22/5), particularly for improving understanding and efficiency. Trust in AI-generated medical information remained moderate (3.11-3.33/5), reflecting concerns about inaccuracies and ethical issues. Open-ended responses highlighted incorrect AI-generated information as a common concern. A significant difference in reported encounters with incorrect AI-generated content was observed between cohorts ( Conclusion: AI tools are widely adopted by medical students and are perceived as enhancing rather than replacing traditional study methods. Structured AI literacy activities may be associated with differences in how students evaluate AI-generated content; however, further longitudinal and controlled studies are required to determine whether such educational experiences have a measurable impact on learners' attitudes and practices.
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.