AI in Medical Education: Global situation, effects and challenges
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A significant increase in publications was noted in 2022 compared with the two previous years, and this was later surpassed by publications in 2023.
“A significant increase was noted in 2022 compared with the two previous years, coinciding with the release of ChatGPT by OpenAI [8, 23], which was later surpassed by those published in 2023 (Fig. 1).”
From Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: an updated scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [23]
Enthusiasm was juxtaposed with concerns, including a lack of knowledge about AI's mechanisms, workings, specific applications, and firsthand clinical experience with AI; some students worried that AI could reduce human interaction with patients and dehumanize healthcare; and there were concerns about data protection, increased workplace surveillance, and the potential impact of AI on physician
“However, enthusiasm was juxtaposed with concerns, including a lack of knowledge about AI’s mechanisms, workings, specific applications, and firsthand clinical experience with AI [46, 76]. Some students worried that AI could reduce human interaction with patients and dehumanize healthcare [48]. Additionally, there were concerns about data protection [23], increased workplace surveillance [42], and”
From Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: an updated scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [23]
AI aided in automating marking and grading while providing feedback.
“automating marking and grading while providing feedback [23].”
From Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: an updated scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [23]
AI-related skills such as computational thinking, data ethics, and interdisciplinary collaboration cannot be taught as optional extras and must be integrated into the fundamental structure of medical training.
“There is an increasing recognition that AI-related skills—such as computational thinking, data ethics, and interdisciplinary collaboration—cannot be taught as optional extras. They must be integrated into the fundamental structure of medical training [8–10].”
From Institutionalizing convergence education for medical artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 77 · Cited by 148
- Authors
- Zhang, W., Cai, M., Lee, H. J., Evans, R., Zhu, C., & Ming, C.
- Affiliations
- Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
- Catholic University of Korea (KR)
- Dalhousie University (CA)
- Wuhan University (CN)
- Hunan Agricultural University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhu, Chengyan
- Venue
- Education and Information Technologies
- Published
- 2023-07-10
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 4611-4633
- ISSN
- 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7608
- OpenAlex
- W4383737218
- Cited by
- 148
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 5.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (72104087, 72004070)
- National Social Science Foundation of China (18CZZ001)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in medical education, teaching evaluation, real-time feedback, teaching quality monitoring, AI adoption barriers, interdisciplinary collaboration, medical students, AI training data
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review