Medical students' use of large language models: a national survey
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in medical education and clinical care settings, yet contemporary Canadian data describing medical students' use and perceptions remain limited. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the prevalence, frequency, and patterns of LLM use among medical students in Canada; to characterize perceptions of utility, accuracy, limitations, and impact; and to describe perceived barriers, challenges, and ethical/privacy concerns. METHODS: We conducted a national, cross-sectional survey distributed to English-speaking medical students between November and December 2025. Recruitment occurred through medical school channels, student unions, and national/regional student organizations. RESULTS: Among 286 respondents from 10 medical schools, 96.50% reported using at least one LLM. The most commonly used LLMs were ChatGPT (93.36%) and OpenEvidence (57.69%). Daily/weekly use was most frequent for coursework assistance (60.22%) and clinical questions (57.14%). Most respondents reported positive impacts on efficiency (81.62%), learning (77.01%), and academic performance (59.49%). Students commonly reported encountering inaccurate information (90.18%). Formal instruction on LLM use was uncommon (10.95%), though 67.67% of students agreed medical schools should integrate formal instruction on LLMs. Only 21.43% of respondents felt adequately educated on data privacy regulations applicable to these tools. CONCLUSION: While LLM use among surveyed medical students in Canada was nearly universal and perceived favorably, students reported exposure to inaccurate outputs and substantial gaps in formal training and privacy literacy. These findings support the development of structured curricular guidance on appropriate application of these tools, including information verification practices and ethical, privacy-aware engagement.
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?
Specialized proprietary LLMs (e.g., OpenEvidence and UpToDate Expert AI) are designed to provide responses grounded in medical literature and are seeing increasing adoption in medical practice among health professionals and medical students.
“Also, specialized proprietary LLMs (e.g., OpenEvidence and UpToDate Expert AI) are designed to provide responses grounded in medical literature, 115 and are seeing increasing adoption in medical practice, 9 among health professionals and medical students.115,116”
From Large Language Models in Pharmacist-Led Direct Patient Care: A Rapid Review of Published Evaluations (2026) · cites this paper as [116]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 1
- Authors
- Barr, A. A., Rozman, R. C., Liu, K., Pham, M., Klarenbach, Z., Chinna-Meyyappan, A., Hassan, A. Y., Zarychta, M., Ferri, O. E., Al-Khaz’Aly, A., Datt, P., Herik, A. I., Sadek, K., Paget, M., & Holodinsky, J. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Calgary (CA)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Barr, Austin A.
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2026-11
- Volume
- 220
- Pages
- 106589
- ISSN
- 1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7167238342
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 2.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- large language models, medical students, ChatGPT, AI ethics
- MeSH terms
- Large Language Models, Canada, Cross-Sectional Studies, Education, Medical, Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Medical
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