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

Machine Learning: The Next Paradigm Shift in Medical Education

James, Cornelius A., Wheelock, Kevin M., Woolliscroft, James O.·2021·Academic Medicine

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) algorithms are powerful prediction tools with immense potential in the clinical setting. There are a number of existing clinical tools that use ML, and many more are in development. Physicians are important stakeholders in the health care system, but most are not equipped to make informed decisions regarding deployment and application of ML technologies in patient care. It is of paramount importance that ML concepts are integrated into medical curricula to position physicians to become informed consumers of the emerging tools employing ML. This paradigm shift is similar to the evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement of the 1990s. At that time, EBM was a novel concept; now, EBM is considered an essential component of medical curricula and critical to the provision of high-quality patient care. ML has the potential to have a similar, if not greater, impact on the practice of medicine. As this technology continues its inexorable march forward, educators must continue to evaluate medical curricula to ensure that physicians are trained to be informed stakeholders in the health care of tomorrow.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000003943

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The reviewed literature suggests a consensus on the importance of AI education in the medical curriculum but a void in actual planning and implementation of such education.

    “Our results show that the literature suggests a consensus of opinions regarding the importance of AI education in medical curriculum but a void in actual planning and implementation of this.43,46,48”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
James, C. A., Wheelock, K. M., & Woolliscroft, J. O.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
James, Cornelius A.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2021-01-25
Volume
96
Issue
7
Pages
954-957
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3125170355
Cited by
58
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 14 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3
FWCI
3.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
Keywords
machine learning, medical education, medical curriculum, clinical decision support, physician training, evidence-based medicine, clinical implementation of AI
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Machine Learning, Stakeholder Participation, COVID-19 Testing, Aged, Algorithms, Clinical Trials as Topic, Curriculum, Delivery of Health Care, Diabetic Retinopathy, Diagnostic Imaging, Education, Medical, Female, Humans, Male, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Liability, Legal, Evidence-Based Medicine, History, 20th Century

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