Cited by 94Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInnovations in Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Education

Grounded in reality: artificial intelligence in medical education

Open access
Krive, Jacob, Isola, Miriam, Chang, Linda, Patel, Tushar, Anderson, Max, Sreedhar, Radhika·2023·JAMIA Open

Abstract

Background: In a recent survey, medical students expressed eagerness to acquire competencies in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine. It is time that undergraduate medical education takes the lead in helping students develop these competencies. We propose a solution that integrates competency-driven AI instruction in medical school curriculum. Methods: We applied constructivist and backwards design principles to design online learning assignments simulating the real-world work done in the healthcare industry. Our innovative approach assumed no technical background for students, yet addressed the need for training clinicians to be ready to practice in the new digital patient care environment. This modular 4-week AI course was implemented in 2019, integrating AI with evidence-based medicine, pathology, pharmacology, tele-monitoring, quality improvement, value-based care, and patient safety. Results: This educational innovation was tested in 2 cohorts of fourth year medical students who demonstrated an improvement in knowledge with an average quiz score of 97% and in skills with an average application assignment score of 89%. Weekly reflections revealed how students learned to transition from theory to practice of AI and how these concepts might apply to their upcoming residency training programs and future medical practice. Conclusions: We present an innovative product that achieves the objective of competency-based education of students regarding the role of AI in medicine. This course can be integrated in the preclinical years with a focus on foundational knowledge, vocabulary, and concepts, and in clinical years with a focus on application of core knowledge to real-world scenarios.

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 · 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad037

Cites

12 of 12 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?

  • Krive et al. created a modular 4-week AI elective for fourth-year medical students, primarily delivered online, aligning with our elements of critical appraisal of AI research/technology (A7, A13), clinical interpretation of results from AI tools (A11), developing strategies to mitigate bias (E8), and communicating results to patients (COM3).

    “Krive et al. Created a modular 4-week AI elective for fourth-year medical students, primarily delivered online, aligning with our elements of critical appraisal of AI research/technology (A7, A13), clinical interpretation of results from AI tools (A11), developing strategies to mitigate bias (E8), and communicating results to patients (COM3)20.”

    From Developing a Canadian artificial intelligence medical curriculum using a Delphi study (2024) · cites this paper as [20]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Students exposed to GenAI-generated cases exhibit improved clinical reasoning compared to those trained through traditional methods.

    “Students exposed to GenAI-generated cases exhibit improved clinical reasoning compared to those trained through traditional methods [19].”

    From Effects of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) patient simulation on perceived clinical competency among global nursing undergraduates: a cross-over randomised controlled trial (2025) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Methods (Design; page unavailable) describe assignments based on simulated patient-care scenarios, and the Abstract (Results; page unavailable) reports improved AI knowledge and skills. Neither passage says the cases were GenAI-generated or reports a comparison with traditional training on clinical reasoning. Searches for GenAI-generated cases and a traditional-methods comparison found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Understanding AI requires training, especially its impact on care management decisions, patient outcomes discussions, and ethical decision-making.

    “Understanding AI requires training, especially its impact on care management decisions, patient outcomes discussions, and ethical decision-making [2,39,40].”
  • There is increasing agreement within the literature on the need for health informatics skills, as shown in multiple recently published papers suggesting various educational methods and frameworks.

    “There is increasing agreement within the literature on this need as shown in multiple recently published papers suggesting various educational methods and frameworks to accomplish this [39,44].”
  • There have been some recent attempts to create frameworks for medical school implementation of AI technologies.

    “There have been some recent attempts to create frameworks for medical school implementation of AI technologies.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [10]Freeth D, Savin-Baden M, Thistlethwaite J. Interprofessional education. In: Swanwick T, Forrest K, O’Brien B, eds. Understanding Medical Education: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons; 2019: 1– 6.
  2. [11]Kaufman DM. Teaching and learning in medical education: how theory can inform practice In: Swanwick T, Forrest K, O’Brien B, eds. Understanding Medical Education: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons; 2019: 1– 6.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Krive, J., Isola, M., Chang, L., Patel, T., Anderson, M., & Sreedhar, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago, Rockford campus (US)
Corresponding author
Krive, Jacob
Venue
JAMIA Open
Published
2023-04-06
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
ooad037-ooad037
ISSN
2574-2531 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4379185283
Cited by
93
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 6
FWCI
3.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMIA Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • University of Illinois at Chicago
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 in healthcare, medical education, AI competencies, undergraduate medical curriculum, competency-based education, backward design, constructivist learning, remote patient monitoring, value-based care, patient safety, quality improvement, evidence-based medicine

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