Artificial Intelligence Teaching as Part of Medical Education: Qualitative Analysis of Expert Interviews
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine is expected to increase significantly in the upcoming years. Advancements in AI technology have the potential to revolutionize health care, from aiding in the diagnosis of certain diseases to helping with treatment decisions. Current literature suggests the integration of the subject of AI in medicine as part of the medical curriculum to prepare medical students for the opportunities and challenges related to the use of the technology within the clinical context. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the relevant knowledge and understanding of the subject of AI in medicine and specify curricula teaching content within medical education. METHODS: For this research, we conducted 12 guideline-based expert interviews. Experts were defined as individuals who have been engaged in full-time academic research, development, or teaching in the field of AI in medicine for at least 5 years. As part of the data analysis, we recorded, transcribed, and analyzed the interviews using qualitative content analysis. We used the software QCAmap and inductive category formation to analyze the data. RESULTS: The qualitative content analysis led to the formation of three main categories ("Knowledge," "Interpretation," and "Application") with a total of 9 associated subcategories. The experts interviewed cited knowledge and an understanding of the fundamentals of AI, statistics, ethics, and privacy and regulation as necessary basic knowledge that should be part of medical education. The analysis also showed that medical students need to be able to interpret as well as critically reflect on the results provided by AI, taking into account the associated risks and data basis. To enable the application of AI in medicine, medical education should promote the acquisition of practical skills, including the need for basic technological skills, as well as the development of confidence in the technology and one's related competencies. CONCLUSIONS: The analyzed expert interviews' results suggest that medical curricula should include the topic of AI in medicine to develop the knowledge, understanding, and confidence needed to use AI in the clinical context. The results further imply an imminent need for standardization of the definition of AI as the foundation to identify, define, and teach respective content on AI within medical curricula.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».