Novel Blended Learning on Artificial Intelligence for Medical Students: Qualitative Interview Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are becoming increasingly relevant in everyday clinical practice, with Food and Drug Administration-approved AI solutions now available in many specialties. This development has far-reaching implications for doctors and the future medical profession, highlighting the need for both practicing physicians and medical students to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to effectively use and evaluate these technologies. Currently, however, there is limited experience with AI-focused curricular training and continuing education. Objective: This paper first introduces a novel blended learning curriculum including one module on AI for medical students in Germany. Second, this paper presents findings from a qualitative postcourse evaluation of students' knowledge and attitudes toward AI and their overall perception of the course. Methods: Clinical-year medical students can attend a 5-day elective course called "Medicine in the Digital Age," which includes one dedicated AI module alongside 4 others on digital doctor-patient communication; digital health applications and smart devices; telemedicine; and virtual/augmented reality and robotics. After course completion, participants were interviewed in semistructured small group interviews. The interview guide was developed deductively from existing evidence and research questions compiled by our group. A subset of interview questions focused on students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding medical AI, and their overall course assessment. Responses were analyzed using Mayring's qualitative content analysis. This paper reports on the subset of students' statements about their perception and attitudes toward AI and the elective's general evaluation. Results: We conducted a total of 18 group interviews, in which all 35 (100%) participants (female=11, male=24) from 3 consecutive course runs participated. This produced a total of 214 statements on AI, which were assigned to the 3 main categories "Areas of Application," "Future Work," and "Critical Reflection." The findings indicate that students have a nuanced and differentiated understanding of AI. Additionally, 610 statements concerned the elective's overall assessment, demonstrating great learning benefits and high levels of acceptance of the teaching concept. All 35 students would recommend the elective to peers. Conclusions: The evaluation demonstrated that the AI module effectively generates competences regarding AI technology, fosters a critical perspective, and prepares medical students to engage with the technology in a differentiated manner. The curriculum is feasible, beneficial, and highly accepted among students, suggesting it could serve as a teaching model for other medical institutions. Given the growing number and impact of medical AI applications, there is a pressing need for more AI-focused curricula and further research on their educational impact.
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 | 0,022 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».