Observational studyJMIR formative research2026
AI Tool Use Among Osteopathic Medical Students: Pilot Digital Diary Study.
Observational study in JMIR formative research, 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: AI is increasingly integrated into medical education, offering new ways for students to acquire knowledge and support clinical reasoning. However, the extent, patterns, and implications of AI use among medical students remain incompletely understood. Prior studies have relied on retrospective surveys that are susceptible to recall bias and have not quantified AI use as a proportion of total study time. Objective: This pilot study aimed to quantify real-time AI use among medical students, including the proportion of study time devoted to AI, and how use varies by training stage and engagement style (active vs passive). Active use was defined as iterative, bidirectional engagement; passive use was defined as unidirectional consultation with limited interrogation. Methods: This longitudinal observational cohort study recruited medical students from 2 osteopathic medical schools (April-May 2025) to complete a baseline survey and 7 digital diary entries over a 21-day period, delivered via automated SMS every 3 days. Students reported total study time, AI use time, tools used, and purposes of use. The data were analyzed using Stata 19. Multiple linear regression models examined associations between AI use (total minutes and percentage of study time) and key variables, and a mixed-effects model using diary-level data with a random intercept per student addressed within-person variability across entries. Results: A total of 71 of 1332 (response rate: 5.3%) eligible students completed the baseline survey (mean age 26.6, SD 2.8 y; n=39, 55% identified as men; n=32, 45% identified as women; n=55, 77% preclinical). On average, students reported using AI tools during 19% of their total study time (mean 35.8 of 185.6 min per diary, SD 35.8 min). The most used tool was ChatGPT (n=63, 89%), followed by Google Gemini (n=22, 31%). Clinical-phase students (MS3-MS4) used AI significantly more than preclinical students (MS1-MS2), with an adjusted increase of 19% ( Conclusions: Although preliminary, these findings suggest that medical students are incorporating AI into a substantial proportion of their study time, with greater use among clinical trainees and active users. Despite this, most use remains passive. Given mixed evidence on AI's impact on deep learning, further research on learning outcomes is needed. Institutions may consider providing guidance on responsible AI use, including critical evaluation and verification of outputs. The digital diary methodology offers a practical approach for capturing real-time AI use and may inform future educational research and intervention design.
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.