Cited by 58Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInnovations in Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Education

Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: a Scoping Review of the Evidence for Efficacy and Future Directions

Open access
Shaw, Kody, Henning, Marcus A., Webster, Craig S.·2025·Medical Science Educator

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated clinical potential, yet its influence on medical education remains limited. This review explores AI applications in medical education, evaluates available evidence and considers future applications. We conducted a scoping review (PubMed, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Google Scholar; 2010–2022) identifying 42 relevant peer-reviewed articles. Four key themes emerged: surgical skills assessment, radiology training, interactive learning, and text interpretation. Current applications enhance surgical simulation and facilitate interactive learning. These tools may evolve towards comprehensive and individualised educational aids. Despite promising early applications, evidence on educational and clinical outcomes remains limited. Future research should prioritise validated outcomes in larger trials to confirm generalisability and address AI limitations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40670-025-02373-0

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • These scoping reviews largely describe broad "AI literacy" themes or program-level content rather than systematically extracting and organizing competency- and learning-objective-level outcomes for undergraduate medical education.

    “but these syntheses largely describe broad “AI literacy” themes or program-level content rather than systematically extracting and organizing competency- and learning-objective-level outcomes for undergraduate medical education (UME).”

    From What the AI era doctor should know: a scoping review of proposed artificial intelligence competencies for medical education (2026) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Methods (Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria; page unavailable) exclude surveys of AI understanding and discussions of medical-school curriculum adaptation. The Discussion (Strengths and Limitations; page unavailable) distinguishes this review from broad overviews and says it emphasizes concrete educational outcomes. The review does not systematically organize UME competency- and learning-objective-level outcomes, but describing it as largely about broad AI-literacy themes or program-level content is contrary to its stated scope. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Prior work has mapped curricula and interventions.

    “Cheng et al. and broader scoping work across the medical education continuum (Gordon et al.; Tolentino et al.; Ma et al.; Shaw et al.; Rincón et al.) have articulated high-level domains, mapped curricula and interventions, and emphasized the need for clearer competency frameworks24–27,32,33.”

    From What the AI era doctor should know: a scoping review of proposed artificial intelligence competencies for medical education (2026) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Results section (‘Classifying Emergent Applications of AI in Medical Education’; page not provided) groups the reviewed AI educational interventions into four categories, supporting the intervention-mapping part of the claim. The Methods (‘Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria’; page not provided) explicitly exclude discussions of medical-school curriculum adaptation, so this source does not support the curriculum-mapping part. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Prior work has emphasized the need for clearer competency frameworks.

    “Cheng et al. and broader scoping work across the medical education continuum (Gordon et al.; Tolentino et al.; Ma et al.; Shaw et al.; Rincón et al.) have articulated high-level domains, mapped curricula and interventions, and emphasized the need for clearer competency frameworks24–27,32,33.”

    From What the AI era doctor should know: a scoping review of proposed artificial intelligence competencies for medical education (2026) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Results section (‘Classifying Emergent Applications of AI in Medical Education’; page unavailable) identifies gaps in competency-based surgical training, and the Discussion (‘Surgery’; page unavailable) proposes using AI assessment to develop competency minimums. That supports a need for clearer surgical competency standards, but the paper does not call for broader competency frameworks across medical education. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several scoping reviews have examined AI within medical education.

    “Several scoping reviews have examined AI within medical education23–28”
  • Prior work has articulated high-level domains.

    “Cheng et al. and broader scoping work across the medical education continuum (Gordon et al.; Tolentino et al.; Ma et al.; Shaw et al.; Rincón et al.) have articulated high-level domains, mapped curricula and interventions, and emphasized the need for clearer competency frameworks24–27,32,33.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [13]Abdellatif H, Al Mushaiqri M, Albalushi H, et al. Teaching, learning and assessing anatomy with Artificial Intelligence: the road to a better future. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:14209. 10.3390/ijerph192114209doi:10.3390/ijerph192114209. PMC9656803 36361089 · DOI
  2. [38]Nguyen XA, Ljuhar D, Pacilli M, et al. Surgical skill levels: classification and analysis using deep neural network model and motion signals. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2019;177:1–8. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.05.008.oq. 31319938 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shaw, K., Henning, M. A., & Webster, C. S.
Affiliations
University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Shaw, Kody
Venue
Medical Science Educator
Published
2025-04-02
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
1803-1816
ISSN
2156-8650 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4409168865
Cited by
58
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 19
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Science Educator (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of Auckland
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence, medical education, surgical skill assessment, surgical simulation, radiology education, interactive learning, textual interpretation, individualised learning

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