CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 15Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInnovations in Medical EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Readying Medical Students for Medical AI: The Need to Embed AI Ethics Education

Open access
Quinn, Thomas P, Coghlan, Simon·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2109.02866arXiv 2109.02866
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Medical students will almost inevitably encounter powerful medical AI systems early in their careers. Yet, contemporary medical education does not adequately equip students with the basic clinical proficiency in medical AI needed to use these tools safely and effectively. Education reform is urgently needed, but not easily implemented, largely due to an already jam-packed medical curricula. In this article, we propose an education reform framework as an effective and efficient solution, which we call the Embedded AI Ethics Education Framework. Unlike other calls for education reform to accommodate AI teaching that are more radical in scope, our framework is modest and incremental. It leverages existing bioethics or medical ethics curricula to develop and deliver content on the ethical issues associated with medical AI, especially the harms of technology misuse, disuse, and abuse that affect the risk-benefit analyses at the heart of healthcare. In doing so, the framework provides a simple tool for going beyond the "What?" and the "Why?" of medical AI ethics education, to answer the "How?", giving universities, course directors, and/or professors a broad road-map for equipping their students with the necessary clinical proficiency in medical AI.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2109.02866

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • Convergence education in medical AI requires a translational mindset, training professionals who can co-design, evaluate, and govern tools, not just use them.

    “What sets convergence education in medical AI apart is the need for a translational mindset. Students must not only understand algorithmic systems but also be capable of placing them within patient-centered care, population health objectives, and regulatory environments.”

    From Institutionalizing convergence education for medical artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Introduction (p. 1) says students need enough technical-medical knowledge to understand AI’s risks and benefits for patients, and Section 4 (p. 8) recommends critically evaluating emerging regulatory and professional standards. This supports education beyond simply using AI tools. The paper does not say students must be trained to co-design or govern those tools, or frame the curriculum around population-health objectives and a translational mindset. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Additional recommendations on AI ethics teaching content include explainability, liability, and accountability.

    “Additional recommendations on AI ethics teaching content include “explainability,” “liability,” and “accountability,” which are also considered important by available guidelines [30,40].”

    From Proposing a Principle-Based Approach for Teaching AI Ethics in Medical Education (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

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: 1

  1. [19][19] I. Glenn Cohen and Michelle M. Mello. Big Data, Big Tech, and Protecting Patient Privacy. JAMA , 322(12):1141-1142, September 2019. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Quinn, T. P., & Coghlan, S.
Affiliations
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2109.02866
arXiv
2109.02866
OpenAlex
W3197931242
Cited by
13
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
artificial intelligence in healthcare, AI ethics education, medical students, medical education reform, bioethics curriculum, risk-benefit assessment

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