PreprintCited by 187Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInnovations in Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Education

Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education- Perception Among Medical Students

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

Preprint — published as 10.1186/s12909-024-05760-0 · Paper page

Abstract

Background Artificial Intelligence( AI) is increasingly being integrated into various aspects of human life, including healthcare, with applications such as robotic surgery, virtual nursing assistants, and image analysis. Recognizing the transformative impact of AI in healthcare, the World Medical Association advocates for the inclusion of AI education in medical curricula to prepare healthcare professionals for this emerging field. This study aims to assess medical students' perceptions on AI in medicine, their preferences for structured AI training during medical education, and their understanding of the ethical dimensions associated with AI in healthcare. Materials & Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among 325 medical students in Kerala, India using a pre-validated, semi-structured, self- administered questionnaire. The survey collected demographic information, assessed participants' prior knowledge of AI, and evaluated their self-perceived understanding of AI concepts. Participants' responded to twelve 5-point Likert scale questions regarding their perceptions on AI in medicine and expressed their opinions on the inclusion of certain AI topics in medical curricula. Results & Discussion Most participants (57.2%) viewed AI as an assistive technology, capable of reducing errors in medical practice. A significant percentage(54.2%) believed that AI could enhance the accuracy of medical decisions, while 48.6% acknowledged its potential to improve patient access to healthcare. Concerns were raised by 37.6% of participants' about the potential decrease in the need for physicians, leading to unemployment. Additionally, apprehensions were expressed regarding the impact of AI on the humanistic aspects of medicine, with 69.2% fearing a decline in the human touch. Participants' also recognized potential challenges to "trust"( 52.9%), and the patient- physician relationship(54.5%). Notably, over half of the participants' were uncertain about maintaining professional confidentiality(51.1%) and believed that AI might violate confidentiality( 53.5%). Only 3.7% felt competent enough to inform patients' about features and risks of AI. Participants' expressed a strong need for structured training in AI applications, especially on the topic of "reducing medical errors"( 76.9%), and "ethical issues" arising from the widespread use of AI in healthcare(79.4%). Conclusion This study underscores the demand among medical students for structured AI training within the undergraduate medical curriculum, emphasizing the importance of incorporating AI education to meet evolving healthcare needs. While there are widespread ethical concerns, the majority are convinced that AI can be used as an assistive technology in healthcare. The findings contribute essential insights for curriculum development and the definition of 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 · 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3833999/v1

Cites

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.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 35 · Cited by 187

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Turing AM. Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Parsing the Turing Test. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2009. p.23-65.
  2. Morgan Kaufmann; 1984. . Jimma BL. Arti cial intelligence in healthcare: A bibliometric analysis. Telematics and Informatics Reports [Internet]. 2023;9(100041):100041. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772503023000014.
  3. Guo Y, Hao Z, Zhao S, Gong J, Yang F. Arti cial intelligence in health care: Bibliometric analysis. J Med Internet Res [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 Jul 24];22(7):e18228. Available from: https://www.jmir.org/2020/7/e18228/.
  4. Becker A. Arti cial intelligence in medicine: What is it doing for us today? Health Policy Technol [Internet]. 2019;8(2):198-205. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883718301758.
  5. Arti cial 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. Arti cial intelligence in medical education: a cross-sectional needs assessment. BMC Medical Education. 2022;22(1):772. mcivaner@gmail.com.
  6. Hosny A, Parmar C, Quackenbush J, Schwartz LH, Aerts HJWL. Arti cial intelligence in radiology. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018;18(8):500.

Authors
Jackson, P., S, G. P., Babu, C., Tony, C., Jack, D. S., Davis, D., R, R. V., Kurian, N., & John, A.
Affiliations
  • Pushpagiri Medical College (IN)
  • Pushpagiri Medical College
Venue
BMC Medical Education
Published
2024-01-11
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
804-804
ISSN
1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401046213
Cited by
187
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 112 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 12
FWCI
17.40
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