ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Cognitive reshaping and resurgence of humanness: restructuring the medical education continuum in the era of generative AI.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming medical education. While AI enhances personalized learning, its integration raises concerns regarding "cognitive outsourcing," automation bias, and erosion of independent clinical reasoning. Aim & methods: This narrative review critically evaluates the cognitive and educational impacts of generative AI and proposes structural realignment across the medical education continuum. We synthesized literature from major databases (PubMed, Scopus) focusing on AI's intersection with clinical reasoning and humanistic competencies. Main findings: We identify three cognitive vulnerabilities: deskilling (loss of diagnostic abilities among advanced learners), never-skilling (failure to develop foundational mental models in junior trainees), and automation bias (uncritical acceptance of machine-generated recommendations). Traditional memory-based assessments, such as multiple-choice questions (MCQs), are increasingly insufficient for evaluating clinical readiness. Key recommendations: Medical education needs to pivot towards methodologies AI cannot replicate, acknowledging that strategies like case-based learning (CBL) and problem-based learning (PBL) are not novel but are now urgently necessitated by AI. We propose a division of labor where "AI treats the chart" while "humans treat the patient." Undergraduate medical education (UME) is encouraged to prioritize pathophysiological reasoning to counter never-skilling; graduate medical education (GME) would benefit from emphasizing human-AI collaboration and deliberate reflection to counter deskilling and automation bias; continuing medical education (CME) may consider facilitating lifelong adaptation and structured "unlearning" of obsolete heuristics. Conclusion: Rather than competing with algorithmic memory, medical education needs to cultivate "augmented clinicians" equipped with high AI literacy and profound humanness, ensuring technology enhances rather than displaces relational patient care.
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.