Cited by 186Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInnovations in Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Education

Artificial intelligence in medical education - perception among medical students

Open access
Jackson, Preetha, Ponath Sukumaran, Gayathri, Babu, Chikku, Tony, M. Christa, Jack, Deen Stephano, Reshma, V. R., Davis, Dency, Kurian, Nisha +1 more·2024·BMC Medical Education

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: As Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes pervasive in healthcare, including applications like robotic surgery and image analysis, the World Medical Association emphasises integrating AI education into medical curricula. This study evaluates medical students’ perceptions of ‘AI in medicine’, their preferences for AI training in education, and their grasp of AI’s ethical implications in healthcare. Materials & methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 325 medical students in Kerala using a pre-validated, semi structured questionnaire. The survey collected demographic data, any past educational experience about AI, participants’ self-evaluation of their knowledge and evaluated self-perceived understanding of applications of AI in medicine. Participants responded to twelve Likert-scale questions targeting perceptions and ethical aspects and their opinions on suggested topics on AI to be included in their curriculum. Results & discussion: AI was viewed as an assistive technology for reducing medical errors by 57.2% students and 54.2% believed AI could enhance medical decision accuracy. About 49% agreed that AI could potentially improve accessibility to healthcare. Concerns about AI replacing physicians were reported by 37.6% and 69.2% feared a reduction in the humanistic aspect of medicine. Students were worried about challenges to trust (52.9%), patient-physician relationships (54.5%) and breach of professional confidentiality (53.5%). Only 3.7% felttotally competent in informing patients about features and risks associated with AI applications. Strong demand for structured AI training was expressed, particularly on reducing medical errors (76.9%) and ethical issues (79.4%). Conclusion: This study highlights medical students’ demand for structured AI training in undergraduate curricula, emphasising its importance in addressing evolving healthcare needs and ethical considerations. Despite widespread ethical concerns, the majority perceive AI as an assistive technology in healthcare. These findings provide valuable insights for curriculum development and defining learning outcomes in AI education for medical students.

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 · 10.1186/s12909-024-05760-0

Cites

34 of 34 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?

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 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [2]Turing AM. Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Parsing the Turing Test. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2009;23–65.
  2. [22]Artificial intelligence in medical applications and ethical problems: knowledge and thoughts of medical students Survey form used in: Civaner MM, Uncu Y, Bulut F, Chalil EG, Tatlı A. Artificial intelligence in medical education: a cross-sectional needs assessment. BMC Medical Education. 2022;22(1):772. mcivaner@gmail.com. PMC9646274 36352431
  3. [35]Augmented Intelligence in Health Care. AMA AI, Board Report. 2018. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-08/ai-2018-board-report.pdf.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jackson, P., Ponath Sukumaran, G., Babu, C., Tony, M. C., Jack, D. S., Reshma, V. R., Davis, D., Kurian, N., & John, A.
Affiliations
Pushpagiri Medical College (IN)
Venue
BMC Medical Education
Published
2024-07-27
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
804-804
ISSN
1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401046213
Cited by
185
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 110 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 12
FWCI
17.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 students' perceptions, ethics of AI in healthcare, medical errors, physician-patient trust, professional secrecy, AI training needs, undergraduate medical education
MeSH terms
Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Attitude of Health Personnel, Cross-Sectional Studies, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Female, Humans, India, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Medical, Young Adult

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