ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: Perceptions of Romanian Medical Students in a Cross-Sectional Study.
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. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into medical education has transformed learning environments and educational strategies. Understanding medical students' perceptions regarding the educational utility, clinical applicability, and ethical implications of AI tools is essential for guiding their responsible integration into modern medical curricula. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among medical students across all six study years at Victor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timișoara in May 2026 using a modified, validated instrument. Questionnaire domains demonstrated good-to-excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.80-0.94). Data from 374 valid respondents were evaluated using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests with Holm-Bonferroni-adjusted Dunn's post-hoc contrasts and multivariable ordinary least squares linear regression. Results: Overall, 95.98% (n=359) of students reported prior AI use, and 62.56% (n=234) indicated frequent or daily utilization. Students reported the highest agreement for AI saving time during information retrieval (83.42%) and assisting in understanding medical concepts (74.33%). Cross-sectional comparisons identified significant differences across study years for five items (ε Conclusion: Romanian medical students demonstrated high familiarity with AI applications and favorable perceptions of their educational and clinical utility, with positive attitudes strongly predicting perceived clinical usefulness. Cross-sectional variations emerged across specific items and study cohorts. Persistent concerns regarding accuracy, reliability, and academic overdependence highlight the need for structured AI literacy curricula and clear institutional guidelines.
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.