ArticleMedicine2026
The adoption, efficacy, and limitations of large language models in urological education: A cross-sectional survey.
Article 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The integration of large language models into medical education is rapidly transforming pedagogical approaches, particularly in specialized fields like urology. This study aims to evaluate the adoption patterns, perceived efficacy, and significant limitations of these artificial intelligence (AI) tools among urology trainees. This research employed a descriptive, cross-sectional study design through an online survey disseminated to urology trainees at a single institution. A total of 194 complete responses were collected from medical students and interns. The survey assessed adoption patterns, perceived efficacy on a 7-point Likert-scale, and limitations. The analysis revealed near-universal adoption (98.4%), with 65% of participants using AI tools daily, predominantly ChatGPT. Key applications included generating exam-style questions and summarizing complex guidelines. Participants reported significant perceived improvements in core knowledge areas, with the highest gains in disease knowledge and diagnostics (Median = 7, interquartile range: 6-7), which were strongly correlated with increased clinical confidence. Multivariate regression identified usage frequency and comfort with technology as significant predictors of knowledge improvement (β = 0.29, P = .001) and confidence gains (β = 0.30, P < .001). The primary limitation identified was the potential for AI "hallucinations" or incorrect information (54.1%). Large language models are widely adopted and perceived as highly effective for enhancing knowledge and clinical reasoning in urological education. However, their transformative potential is tempered by critical concerns regarding reliability. A balanced approach that combines these powerful AI tools with vigilant oversight is essential.
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.