Medical student’s attitudes and perceptions toward artificial intelligence applications
Open accessAbstract
To evaluate medical students' perceptions in radiology and medical applications of artificial intelligence (AI).Students at 10 prestigious medical schools were issued an online survey that was created using Survey Monkey.It was divided into many parts with the goal of assessing the students' past understanding of AI in radiology and beyond as well as their attitudes about AI in medicine more generally.Anonymity of the respondents was protected.A total of 263 students-166 female and 94 male-with a median age of 23-replied to the survey.Concerning 52 percent of respondents were aware of the current debate about AI in radiology, while 68 percent said they were ignorant of the underlying technology.abnormalities in radiological scans, but they believed that AI would not be able to provide a definitive diagnosis (56 percent).In contrast to claims that human radiologists would be displaced, the majority (77 percent and 86 percent) believed that AI would revolutionize and enhance radiology (83 percent).Over two-thirds of respondents felt that medical education must include AI (71 percent).Male and tech-savvy respondents had higher levels of confidence in the advantages of AI and lower levels of fear of these technologies in sub-group analyses.In conclusion, Contrary to what has been mentioned in the media, medical students are aware of the possible applications and effects of AI on radiology and medicine and do not worry that it will replace human radiologists.The situations in which artificial intelligence has reportedly substituted human radiologists are known to medical students.Since it is their duty, the field of radiology must take the initiative in teaching students about these freshly developed tools.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
15 included studies were conducted in high-income countries and the remaining studies in low- and middle-income countries.
“Specifically, 15 studies were conducted in HICs [26–40], while other studies were conducted in LMICs [23, 24, 41–49].”
From Is it time to introduce an artificial intelligence curriculum in undergraduate medical education? medical students’ perspectives: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [27]
The Methodology and Results describe an original survey of medical students, so the paper supports identifying it as a study. Our copy does not identify the country where it was conducted or classify it as HIC or LMIC, and it cannot establish the citing paper’s tally of 15 HIC studies. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 10 · Cited by 3
- Authors
- Ali A, A. M., Alhadlaq, F., Alabdullatif, G., Basalem, A., Almaziad, A. A., Mahjari, A., & Almazyad, I.
- Affiliations
- Majmaah University (SA)
- Shaqra University (SA)
- Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University (SA)
- Najran University (SA)
- Jubail University College (SA)
- Corresponding author
- Ahood Mahjari
- ORCID
- Abdulaziz Basalem
- Venue
- Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers
- Published
- 2022-01-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 5
- ISSN
- 1989-9572 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4316169221
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- dx.doi.org
- Locations
- Journal for Educators Teachers and Trainers (publishedVersion)
- Institutional Repository of the University of Granada (University of Granada) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in healthcare, medical students' attitudes, radiology, artificial intelligence in radiology, medical education, AI literacy, technology acceptance
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
