Integrating AI in medical education: embracing ethical usage and critical understanding
Open accessAbstract
OPINION article Front. Med., 13 October 2023Sec. Healthcare Professions Education Volume 10 - 2023 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1279707
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This perspective article argues that medical schools should integrate learner-oriented AI tools into curricula while teaching students ethical use and critical appraisal, drawing on the authors' experience with AI-assisted plagiarism in an undergraduate research module. It proposes concrete curricular measures including prompt-writing instruction, AI-use disclosure, AI-detection awareness, and dedicated AI and ethics content.
Key findings
No empirical findings are reported; the paper is a commentary. Points made:
- At least 11 medical schools across the USA, Canada, and the Republic of Korea have pilot AI curricula, and the authors suggest all medical schools may eventually need to follow.
- In the authors' mandatory undergraduate research module at PAPRBS Institute of Health Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, AI writing was detected across several submissions, including "heavy incorporation of ChatGPT content," citations to non-existent papers ("hallucination"), and writing that was "nicely summarized generally" but "touched on superficially and not critically," with similar lack of depth in oral presentations.
- The authors propose guiding students to write effective ChatGPT prompts and use answers to avoid downsides such as hallucination and phrase inaccuracies, requiring disclosure of AI tool use (analogous to disclosing statistical software), and introducing AI-related lectures in first-year covering basic understanding, benefits, and risks.
- Table 1 (adapted from Yu and Guo) lists four ethical issues of generative AI with solutions: opacity/inexplicability, data privacy/security, personalization/fairness, and effectiveness/reliability.
Methods
Perspective/commentary article by healthcare education faculty; no study design, dataset, or formal analysis is described. Evidence base is the authors' own faculty observation of AI misuse in student manuscript submissions checked via Canvas and Turnitin (similarity and AI scores), plus cited literature. The paper also references "conversations with medical students" affirming common ChatGPT usage, without reporting a systematic survey.
Limitations
The paper states no limitations. Evident from the text: the central empirical claim rests on an unreported, non-systematic faculty observation with no sample size, comparison group, or quantified detection rates; the student-usage claim derives from informal conversations rather than structured data; and the proposed curricular measures (prompt training, disclosure requirements, AI lectures, AI-based fourth-year research projects) are untested recommendations rather than evaluated interventions.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 17 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
There was evidence of citations to papers which do not exist (AI hallucination) in the submissions.
“There was evidence of citations to papers which do not exist (an AI phenomenon known as “hallucination”)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
At PAPRBS, AI writing had been detected across several pieces of submission, including heavy incorporation of ChatGPT content that gave rise to serious concerns of academic offense.
“AI writing had been detected across several pieces of submission, including heavy incorporation of ChatGPT content that gave rise to serious concerns of academic offense.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Lack of knowledge depth and critical thinking was demonstrated during the oral presentation.
“The lack of knowledge depth and critical thinking was also demonstrated during the oral presentation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Through conversations with medical students, the authors can affirm common usage of ChatGPT.
“Through our conversations with medical students, we can affirm the common usage of ChatGPT.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisereasoning
It remains unclear to healthcare professionals who is responsible in the event of errors by AI in clinical decision support systems.
“At present, it remains unclear to healthcare professionals who is responsible in the event of errors by AI in clinical decision support systems.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Premisecitation
At least 11 medical schools across the United States of America, Canada and the Republic of Korea have pilot AI curricula.
“At least 11 medical schools across the United States of America, Canada and the Republic of Korea have pilot AI curricula (3).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [3] Lee, 2021, Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review, Acad Med source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Many healthcare professionals would not assume accountability for results provided by AI.
“Also, it appears that many would not assume accountability for results provided by AI (6).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [6] Yurdaisik, 2021, Evaluation of knowledge and attitudes of radiology department workers about artificial intelligence, Ann Clin Anal Med. source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Concerns such as legal liability and accountability have been raised in making clinical decisions with AI.
“Despite the acceptance of AI in the healthcare profession, concerns such as legal liability and accountability have been raised at the crux of the profession, that is, in making clinical decisions (5).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [5] Lambert, 2023, An integrative review on the acceptance of artificial intelligence among healthcare professionals in hospitals, NPJ Digit Med. source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
DALL-E can be used to help medical students practice diagnostic imaging skills.
“another tool, DALL-E, can be used to help them practice their diagnostic imaging skills (9).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [9] Amri, 2023, Incorporating AI tools into medical education: harnessing the benefits of ChatGPT and Dall-E, J Novel Eng Sci Technol source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
For medical students, ChatGPT can be used to provide interactive environments to practice communication skills with simulated patients.
“For medical students, ChatGPT can be used to provide interactive environments for them to practice their communication skills with simulated patients”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [9] Amri, 2023, Incorporating AI tools into medical education: harnessing the benefits of ChatGPT and Dall-E, J Novel Eng Sci Technol source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
Generative AI usage by students is currently creating disconcerting experiences in higher education due to its impact on academic integrity.
“In summary, generative AI is a powerful tool and its usage by students is currently creating disconcerting experiences in higher education due to its impact on academic integrity.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The authors' local experience with AI misuse at PAPRBS is representative of higher education more broadly.
- Premisecitation
ChatGPT can enhance research capabilities, as it did for college-educated professionals in improving the quality and enjoyment of their writing tasks.
“these can enhance research capabilities, as ChatGPT did for college-educated professionals in improving the quality and enjoyment of their writing tasks (20).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [20] Noy, 2023, Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence, Science source
Not checked in the free run.
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 11
- May combine two claims. 6
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe writing was found to be generally nicely summarized but the knowledge was touched on superficially and not critically.
“the writing was found “nicely summarized generally”, but the knowledge was “touched on superficially and not critically”.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAI is becoming increasingly prevalent in healthcare.
“Indeed, AI is becoming increasingly prevalent in healthcare.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [1] Alkhodari, 2023, The role of artificial intelligence in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: towards personalized healthcare, Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [2] Al-Antari, 2023, Artificial intelligence for medical diagnostics-existing and future AI technology!, Diagnostics source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningThe ethical sense when using AI can be fostered by educators during medical education to facilitate accountable and responsible AI usage by future healthcare professionals.
“The ethical sense when using AI can be fostered by educators during medical education to facilitate accountable and responsible AI usage by future healthcare professionals.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationBaker and Smith defined three distinct uses of AI tools in education: learner-oriented, instructor-oriented, and institution-oriented.
“Additionally, three distinct uses of AI tools in education have been defined in a report by Baker and Smith (8), listed below:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [8] 2019
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAI tools in medical education can encompass AI virtual environments, AI-based assessments, and adaptive e-learning systems.
“AI tools in medical education can encompass AI virtual environments, AI-based assessments, and adaptive e-learning systems (7).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] Sapci, 2020, Artificial intelligence education and tools for medical and health informatics students: systematic review, JMIR Med Educ. source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAI can provide personalized recommendations.
“It can provide personalized recommendations (1)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [1] Alkhodari, 2023, The role of artificial intelligence in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: towards personalized healthcare, Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAI can improve medical diagnostics, particularly in medical imaging.
“improve medical diagnostics, particularly in the field of medical imaging (2)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [2] Al-Antari, 2023, Artificial intelligence for medical diagnostics-existing and future AI technology!, Diagnostics source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataStudents may plagiarize essays from content generated by AI tools, compromising their critical thinking skills and scholarly integrity.
“Students may plagiarize essays from content generated by AI tools, compromising their critical thinking skills and scholarly integrity.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataAI writing tools (such as ChatGPT and QuillBot) are prevalent and readily accessible to students right now.
“AI writing tools (such as ChatGPT and QuillBot) are prevalent and readily accessible to students right now”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningBy leveraging the capabilities of AI, medical education can become more personalized and efficient.
“By leveraging the capabilities of AI, medical education can become more personalized and efficient.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The benefits of AI in medical education outweigh the risks if ethical guidelines are followed.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAI-generated information can act as a crutch for clinical decision-making and hamper clinical reasoning abilities.
“avoid AI-generated information acting as a crutch for clinical decision-making and hampering clinical reasoning abilities (17).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [17] Ngo, 2022, The cases for and against artificial intelligence in the medical school curriculum, Radiol Artif Intell. source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationFaculty teaching staff and medical students have interest and positive attitude toward AI.
“supports the interest and positive attitude that faculty teaching staff and medical students have toward AI (14).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [14] Wood, 2021, Are we ready to integrate artificial intelligence literacy into medical school curriculum: students and faculty survey, J Med Educ Curric Dev. source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationScientists have tried to use ChatGPT to write scientific manuscripts with varying success.
“Scientists have tried to use ChatGPT to write scientific manuscripts with varying success (12, 18)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningAI has emerged as a powerful tool in medical education, offering unique opportunities to enhance learning, address knowledge gaps, and improve patient care.
“AI has emerged as a powerful tool in medical education, offering unique opportunities to enhance learning, address knowledge gaps, and improve patient care.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The benefits of AI in medical education outweigh the risks if ethical guidelines are followed.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationYu and Guo elaborated on issues to be resolved when using generative AI in education.
“while Yu and Guo (19) elaborated on issues to be resolved when using generative AI in education”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [19] Yu, 2023, Generative artificial intelligence empowers educational reform: current status, issues, and prospects, Front Educ source
Not checked in the free run.
The paper relies on this without support.
The authors' local experience with AI misuse at PAPRBS is representative of higher education more broadly.
“In summary, generative AI is a powerful tool and its usage by students is currently creating disconcerting experiences in higher education due to its impact on academic integrity.”
The paper relies on this without support.
AI tools can be integrated into medical education without compromising academic integrity if guidelines are followed.
“To address this, universities should implement strict policies and guidelines for the ethical use of AI applications.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Faculty teaching staff are able and willing to adapt to AI integration and develop AI literacy.
“faculty teaching staff need to rapidly adapt to the integration of AI tools and develop AI literacy by being trained in multiple AI tools for teaching and assessment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Medical students will benefit from AI literacy training.
“Medical students need to be guided to think independently and appraise critically as well as ethically despite the convenience of readily generated information.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The benefits of AI in medical education outweigh the risks if ethical guidelines are followed.
“Embracing AI in medical education holds immense potential for advancing healthcare and empowering the next generation of future healthcare professionals to enhance patient care, improve outcomes, and contribute to the advancement of medicine.”
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?
Fifteen publications focused explicitly on ethical considerations concerning the use of AI in medical education.
“15 publications focused explicitly on this topic [7, 38, 84, 97, 186, 190–199].”
From Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: an updated scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [190]
Several publications corroborate the crucial nature of addressing concerns about AI ethics, critical thinking, privacy, and data integrity.
“Several publications corroborate the crucial nature of addressing these concerns.”
From A Training Needs Analysis for AI and Generative AI in Medical Education: Perspectives of Faculty and Students (2025) · cites this paper as [38]
A lack of empirical research and foundational definitions of AI ethics was noted as a barrier to guiding curriculum development.
“A lack of empirical research and foundational definitions of AI ethics was noted as a barrier to guiding curriculum development [190, 195, 198–200].”
From Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: an updated scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [190]
The Training students and faculty staff for ethical use of AI and Conclusion sections recommend ethical-use guidance and curriculum modules. Neither identifies a lack of empirical research or foundational definitions of AI ethics as a barrier to curriculum development; searches for those terms found no supporting passage. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Cites
Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence
Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adh2586 · Cited by 2,150 · see citing works
ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health
De Angelis, L., Baglivo, F., Arzilli, G., Privitera, G. P., Ferragina, P., Tozzi, A. E., & Rizzo, C. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1166120 · Cited by 708 · see citing works
Lambert, S. I., Madi, M., Sopka, S., Lenes, A., Stange, H., Buszello, C.-P., & Stephan, A. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00852-5 · Cited by 404 · see citing works
Sapci, A. H., & Sapci, H. A. (2020) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/19285 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
Yu, H., & Guo, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1183162 · Cited by 357 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review
Lee, J., Wu, A. S., Li, D., & Kulasegaram, K. (. (2021) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004291 · Cited by 324 · see citing works
Wood, E. A., Ange, B. L., & Miller, D. D. (2021) · Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development · doi:10.1177/23821205211024078 · Cited by 261 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence for medical diagnostics-existing and future AI technology!
Al-Antari, M. A. (2023) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics13040688 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Guidance for Authors, Peer Reviewers, and Editors on Use of AI, Language Models, and Chatbots
Flanagin, A., Kendall-Taylor, J., & Bibbins-Domingo, K. (2023) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2023.12500 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
ChatGPT in Medical Imaging Higher Education
Currie, G., Singh, C., Nelson, T., Nabasenja, C., Al-Hayek, Y., & Spuur, K. (2023) · Radiography · doi:10.1016/j.radi.2023.05.011 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
<scp>ChatGTP</scp>: What is it and how can nursing and health science education use it?
Archibald, M. M., & Clark, A. M. (2023) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.15643 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Scientists used ChatGPT to generate an entire paper from scratch — but is it any good?
Conroy, G. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-02218-z · Cited by 65 · see citing works
ChatGPT and medical education: a double-edged sword
Khairatun Hisan, U., & Miftahul Amri, M. (2023) · Journal of Pedagogy and Education Science · doi:10.56741/jpes.v2i01.302 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
The cases for and against artificial intelligence in the medical school curriculum
Ngo, B., Nguyen, D., & vanSonnenberg, E. (2022) · Radiology: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1148/ryai.220074 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Incorporating AI tools into medical education: harnessing the benefits of ChatGPT and Dall-E
Miftahul Amri, M., & Khairatun Hisan, U. (2023) · Journal of Novel Engineering Science and Technology · doi:10.56741/jnest.v2i02.315 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
A role for artificial intelligence chatbots in the writing of scientific articles
Vintzileos, A. M., Chavez, M. R., & Romero, R. J. (2023) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.03.040 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Alkhodari, M., Xiong, Z., Khandoker, A. H., Hadjileontiadis, L. J., Leeson, P., & Lapidaire, W. (2023) · Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · doi:10.1080/14779072.2023.2223978 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Evaluation of knowledge and attitudes of radiology department workers about artificial intelligence
Yurdaisik, I., & Aksoy, S. H. (2021) · Annals of Clinical and Analytical Medicine · doi:10.4328/acam.20453 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Xu, X., Chen, Y., & Miao, J. (2024) · Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions · doi:10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.6 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Natali, C., Marconi, L., Dias Duran, L. D., & Cabitza, F. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11352-1 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Daniel, K., Msambwa, M. M., & Wen, Z. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70036 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: an updated scoping review
Simoni, J., Urtubia-Fernandez, J., Mengual, E., Simoni, D. A., Royo, M., Egaña-Yin, D., Hertog, O. L. A., López-Ortiz, L., Muñoz-Tomás, A., Santiago-Martínez, P., et al. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-08188-2 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
“While many of the overviews and perspectives referred to ethical considerations concerning the use of AI in medical education [77], 15 publications focused explicitly on this topic [7, 38, 84, 97, 186, 190–199].”
McCoy, L., Ganesan, N., Rajagopalan, V., McKell, D., Niño, D. F., & Swaim, M. C. (2025) · Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development · doi:10.1177/23821205251339226 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Sallam, M., Al-Mahzoum, K., Almutairi, Y. M., Alaqeel, O., Abu Salami, A., Almutairi, Z. E., Alsarraf, A. N., & Barakat, M. (2024) · International Medical Education · doi:10.3390/ime3040031 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Jacobs, C., Johnson, H., Tan, N., Brownlie, K., Joiner, R., & Thompson, T. (2025) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/70766 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Alam, F., Lim, M. A., & Zulkipli, I. N.
- Affiliations
- Universiti Brunei Darussalam (BN)
- Corresponding author
- Zulkipli, Ihsan Nazurah
- Venue
- Frontiers in Medicine
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2023-10-13
- Volume
- 10
- Pages
- 1279707-1279707
- ISSN
- 2296-858X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10611520
- OpenAlex
- W4387602412
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 22
- FWCI
- 3.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Medicine (publishedVersion, 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
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, medical education, AI ethics, critical thinking, AI in teaching
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.
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
