Cited by 5Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInnovations in Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Education

Framework for AI integration into the undergraduate medical curricula: a scoping review

Open access
Cheng, D., Chan, Eunice Y.S., Song, Y., Cui, A., Chang, A., Wang, W.·2026·BMC Medical Education

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare, driving global demand for AI applications. Undergraduate medical education (UGME) must therefore prepare future physicians for AI‑augmented practice. However, recent reviews indicate that curriculum reform lags behind the realistic clinical use of AI, raising the question of whether we are training the right “genotype” (undergraduate) and “phenotype” (postgraduate) of physicians for the AI and digital era. This scoping review synthesizes existing evidence on AI in UGME to identify key trends and offer a practical framework for designing future AI‑integrated medical curricula. METHODS: Following the PRISMA‑ScR guidelines, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and gray literature for studies published between January 2019 and December 2024 on AI integration into UGME. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, with a third resolving disagreements. Data from eligible studies were extracted and thematically analyzed using seven core themes derived from the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. RESULT: Among the 767 screened articles, 26 studies met the predefined inclusion criteria, comprising 19 review articles and 7 empirical studies. The identified integrative themes predominantly focused on foundational knowledge, AI applications, and ethical/societal implications. Although themes such as human-AI collaboration, research and innovation, cross-organizational collaboration, and evaluation/assessment were less frequently addressed, they constitute critical components for establishing a sustainable and adaptable AI curriculum framework within medical education settings. CONCLUSION: Drawing on identified practices and theoretical models, this review proposes a structured, seven-element framework to support the design and implementation of future-oriented, AI-enabled UGME curricula across medical institutions worldwide.

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/s12909-026-08620-1

Cites

52 of 52 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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [4]Patel N, Grewal H, Buddhavarapu V, Dhillon G. Openevidence: enhancing medical student clinical rotations with AI but with limitations. Cureus. 2025;17(1):e76867. 39897335 PMC11787857
  2. [19]Tuma F, Nassar AK. Applying Bloom’s taxonomy in clinical surgery: practical examples. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021;69:102656. 34429945 PMC8371225
  3. [20]Ray ME, Rudolph MJ, Daugherty KK. Bloom’s taxonomy in health professions education: associations with exam scores, clinical reasoning, and instructional effectiveness. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2025;17(11):102444. 40695205 · DOI
  4. [25]Wilson LO. Anderson and Krathwohl bloom’s taxonomy revised Understanding the new version of bloom’s taxonomy. Second Principle. 2016;1(1):1–8.
  5. [38]Mir MM, Mir GM, Raina NT, Mir SM, Mir SM, Miskeen E, et al. Application of artificial intelligence in medical education: current scenario and future perspectives. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2023;11(3):133–40. 37469385 PMC10352669

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheng, D., Chan, E. Y. S., Song, Y., Cui, A., Chang, A., & Wang, W.
Affiliations
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Peking University (CN)
Corresponding author
Cheng, D.
Venue
BMC Medical Education
Published
2026-01-23
Volume
26
Issue
1
ISSN
1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7125504003
Cited by
4
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
7.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • 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, undergraduate medical education, curriculum design framework, human-AI collaboration, Bloom's taxonomy, medical curriculum reform, digital health workforce
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Curriculum, 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