Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42691487›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2026

Estimating the Prevalence of Generative AI Use in Medical School Application Essays: Cross-Sectional Study.

Nicholas C Spies, Valerie S Ratts, Ian S Hagemann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nicholas C SpiesDepartment of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5873-351X
Valerie S RattsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-4083-7617
Ian S HagemannDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3855-9745

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenerative AI tools became widely available to the public in November 2022. The extent to which these tools have been used by medical school applicants during the admissions process is unknown.

objectiveWe aimed to estimate the extent of generative AI use among cohorts of applicants spanning the rollout of these tools.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 6000 essays from 2364 applicants submitted to a US medical school in 2021 to 2022 (baseline, before the wide availability of AI) and 2023 to 2024 (test year) to estimate the prevalence of AI use and its relation to other application data. We used GPTZero, a commercially available detection tool, to generate a metric (P

resultsFully human-generated negative controls demonstrated a median P

conclusionsAn AI detection algorithm identified signs of increased use of generative AI in 2023 to 2024 medical school admission applications compared to those in the 2021 to 2022 baseline period, before AI was widely available. AI use did not appear to confer an admissions advantage. Although these results provide information about the applicant pool as a whole, AI detection is imperfect. We do not recommend deploying AI detection for individual applications in live admissions cycles.

Indexed as

School Admission CriteriaSchools, MedicalAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMalePrevalenceRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesAIartificial intelligencemedical schoolsmedical studentsstudent selection

Identifiers

PMID42691487
PMCPMC13586704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.