Cited by 327Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInnovations in Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Education

Artificial Intelligence in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review

Lee, Juehea, Wu, Annie Siyu, Li, David, Kulasegaram, Kulamakan (Mahan)·2021·Academic Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly growing phenomenon poised to instigate large-scale changes in medicine. However, medical education has not kept pace with the rapid advancements of AI. Despite several calls to action, the adoption of teaching on AI in undergraduate medical education (UME) has been limited. This scoping review aims to identify gaps and key themes in the peer-reviewed literature on AI training in UME. METHOD: The scoping review was informed by Arksey and O'Malley's methodology. Seven electronic databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for articles discussing the inclusion of AI in UME between January 2000 and July 2020. A total of 4,299 articles were independently screened by 3 co-investigators and 22 full-text articles were included. Data were extracted using a standardized checklist. Themes were identified using iterative thematic analysis. RESULTS: The literature addressed: (1) a need for an AI curriculum in UME, (2) recommendations for AI curricular content including machine learning literacy and AI ethics, (3) suggestions for curriculum delivery, (4) an emphasis on cultivating "uniquely human skills" such as empathy in response to AI-driven changes, and (5) challenges with introducing an AI curriculum in UME. However, there was considerable heterogeneity and poor consensus across studies regarding AI curricular content and delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the large volume of literature, there is little consensus on what and how to teach AI in UME. Further research is needed to address these discrepancies and create a standardized framework of competencies that can facilitate greater adoption and implementation of a standardized AI curriculum in UME.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000004291

Cites

38 of 38 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, J., Wu, A. S., Li, D., & Kulasegaram, K. (.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University Health Network (CA)
Corresponding author
Lee, Juehea
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2021-10-27
Volume
96
Issue
11S
Pages
S62-S70
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3189751383
Cited by
324
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 80 · 2025: 103 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.88
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence, undergraduate medical education, AI curriculum, AI ethics, curriculum delivery, soft skills, empathy, medical competencies
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Humans

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