Artificial Intelligence in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly growing phenomenon poised to instigate large-scale changes in medicine. However, medical education has not kept pace with the rapid advancements of AI. Despite several calls to action, the adoption of teaching on AI in undergraduate medical education (UME) has been limited. This scoping review aims to identify gaps and key themes in the peer-reviewed literature on AI training in UME. METHOD: The scoping review was informed by Arksey and O'Malley's methodology. Seven electronic databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for articles discussing the inclusion of AI in UME between January 2000 and July 2020. A total of 4,299 articles were independently screened by 3 co-investigators and 22 full-text articles were included. Data were extracted using a standardized checklist. Themes were identified using iterative thematic analysis. RESULTS: The literature addressed: (1) a need for an AI curriculum in UME, (2) recommendations for AI curricular content including machine learning literacy and AI ethics, (3) suggestions for curriculum delivery, (4) an emphasis on cultivating "uniquely human skills" such as empathy in response to AI-driven changes, and (5) challenges with introducing an AI curriculum in UME. However, there was considerable heterogeneity and poor consensus across studies regarding AI curricular content and delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the large volume of literature, there is little consensus on what and how to teach AI in UME. Further research is needed to address these discrepancies and create a standardized framework of competencies that can facilitate greater adoption and implementation of a standardized AI curriculum in UME.
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 | 0.016 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".