Artificial Intelligence Education and Tools for Medical and Health Informatics Students: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine will generate numerous application possibilities to improve patient care, provide real-time data analytics, and enable continuous patient monitoring. Clinicians and health informaticians should become familiar with machine learning and deep learning. Additionally, they should have a strong background in data analytics and data visualization to use, evaluate, and develop AI applications in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the current state of AI training and the use of AI tools to enhance the learning experience. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review was conducted to analyze the use of AI in medical and health informatics education, and to evaluate existing AI training practices. PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols) guidelines were followed. The studies that focused on the use of AI tools to enhance medical education and the studies that investigated teaching AI as a new competency were categorized separately to evaluate recent developments. RESULTS: This systematic review revealed that recent publications recommend the integration of AI training into medical and health informatics curricula. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review exploring the current state of AI education in both medicine and health informatics. Since AI curricula have not been standardized and competencies have not been determined, a framework for specialized AI training in medical and health informatics education is proposed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".