Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Cross-Sectional Study Among Medical Students on Application, Education, and Ethical Aspects
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine not only directly impacts the medical profession but is also increasingly associated with various potential ethical aspects. In addition, the expanding use of AI and AI-based applications such as ChatGPT demands a corresponding shift in medical education to adequately prepare future practitioners for the effective use of these tools and address the associated ethical challenges they present. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore how medical students from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland perceive the use of AI in medicine and the teaching of AI and AI ethics in medical education in accordance with their use of AI-based chat applications, such as ChatGPT. METHODS: This cross-sectional study, conducted from June 15 to July 15, 2023, surveyed medical students across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland using a web-based survey. This study aimed to assess students' perceptions of AI in medicine and the integration of AI and AI ethics into medical education. The survey, which included 53 items across 6 sections, was developed and pretested. Data analysis used descriptive statistics (median, mode, IQR, total number, and percentages) and either the chi-square or Mann-Whitney U tests, as appropriate. RESULTS: Surveying 487 medical students across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland revealed limited formal education on AI or AI ethics within medical curricula, although 38.8% (189/487) had prior experience with AI-based chat applications, such as ChatGPT. Despite varied prior exposures, 71.7% (349/487) anticipated a positive impact of AI on medicine. There was widespread consensus (385/487, 74.9%) on the need for AI and AI ethics instruction in medical education, although the current offerings were deemed inadequate. Regarding the AI ethics education content, all proposed topics were rated as highly relevant. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed a pronounced discrepancy between the use of AI-based (chat) applications, such as ChatGPT, among medical students in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland and the teaching of AI in medical education. To adequately prepare future medical professionals, there is an urgent need to integrate the teaching of AI and AI ethics into the 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.
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 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 découle