Curriculum Frameworks and Educational Programs in AI for Medical Students, Residents, and Practicing Physicians: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The successful integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical practice is contingent upon physicians' comprehension of AI principles and its applications. Therefore, it is essential for medical education curricula to incorporate AI topics and concepts, providing future physicians with the foundational knowledge and skills needed. However, there is a knowledge gap in the current understanding and availability of structured AI curriculum frameworks tailored for medical education, which serve as vital guides for instructing and facilitating the learning process. OBJECTIVE: The overall aim of this study is to synthesize knowledge from the literature on curriculum frameworks and current educational programs that focus on the teaching and learning of AI for medical students, residents, and practicing physicians. METHODS: We followed a validated framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance for scoping reviews. An information specialist performed a comprehensive search from 2000 to May 2023 in the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Scopus as well as the gray literature. Papers were limited to English and French languages. This review included papers that describe curriculum frameworks for teaching and learning AI in medicine, irrespective of country. All types of papers and study designs were included, except conference abstracts and protocols. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts, read the full texts, and extracted data using a validated data extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought. We adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for reporting the results. RESULTS: Of the 5104 papers screened, 21 papers relevant to our eligibility criteria were identified. In total, 90% (19/21) of the papers altogether described 30 current or previously offered educational programs, and 10% (2/21) of the papers described elements of a curriculum framework. One framework describes a general approach to integrating AI curricula throughout the medical learning continuum and another describes a core curriculum for AI in ophthalmology. No papers described a theory, pedagogy, or framework that guided the educational programs. CONCLUSIONS: This review synthesizes recent advancements in AI curriculum frameworks and educational programs within the domain of medical education. To build on this foundation, future researchers are encouraged to engage in a multidisciplinary approach to curriculum redesign. In addition, it is encouraged to initiate dialogues on the integration of AI into medical curriculum planning and to investigate the development, deployment, and appraisal of these innovative educational programs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.11124/JBIES-22-00374.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,048 | 0,157 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,027 | 0,028 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».