ArticleCureus2026
Dependence on Generative Artificial Intelligence Among Medical Students and Its Association With Critical Thinking: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) (e.g., ChatGPT and Google Gemini) is exceptionally useful in the educational field for learning new concepts. However, besides its benefits, it also introduces the risk of pathological dependence on AI. Hence, this study aims to evaluate the prevalence of AI dependency and its association with critical thinking.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at a government medical college in Tamil Nadu. The study population comprised undergraduate medical students. Data were collected using a structured digital questionnaire that consisted of validated Generative AI Dependency and Critical Thinking Disposition Assessment Questionnaire (CTDAQ-20) scales. Statistical analysis included non-parametric group comparisons, Spearman's rank correlation, and multiple linear regression.
resultsAmong the 722 participants, the prevalence of Generative AI usage was 695 (96.3%). Among users (n=695), the median AI dependence score was 2.1 (IQR: 1.6-2.7), with males having higher dependence than females (p=0.019) and final-year students reporting higher dependence than students in other years (p<0.001). The overall median critical thinking score was 71.0 (IQR: 64.0-77.0), with female students scoring higher (72 vs. 69; p<0.001), and first-year students having better critical thinking scores than students in other years (p=0.031). Overall, AI dependence had a significant inverse correlation with overall critical thinking (rho=-0.248, p<0.001), and multiple linear regression confirmed that higher AI dependence (B=-1.487, p<0.001) and increasing age (B=-0.868, p=0.008) were associated with lower critical thinking.
conclusionGenerative AI usage is ubiquitous among medical students. However, greater dependence on AI is independently associated with diminished critical thinking, particularly among final-year and male students. Therefore, it is hypothesized that the medical curriculum should consider incorporating assessment methods that require active learning and clinical reasoning, such as objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) and direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS), rather than relying primarily on traditional theory-based examinations, and should promote AI literacy that supports the use of AI as an adjunct rather than a replacement for human cognition.
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.