Needs, Challenges, and Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is on course to become a mainstay in the patient's room, physician's office, and the surgical suite. Current advancements in health care technology might put future physicians in an insufficiently equipped position to deal with the advancements and challenges brought about by AI and machine learning solutions. Physicians will be tasked regularly with clinical decision-making with the assistance of AI-driven predictions. Present-day physicians are not trained to incorporate the suggestions of such predictions on a regular basis nor are they knowledgeable in an ethical approach to incorporating AI in their practice and evolving standards of care. Medical schools do not currently incorporate AI in their curriculum due to several factors, including the lack of faculty expertise, the lack of evidence to support the growing desire by students to learn about AI, or the lack of Liaison Committee on Medical Education's guidance on AI in medical education. Medical schools should incorporate AI in the curriculum as a longitudinal thread in current subjects. Current students should understand the breadth of AI tools, the framework of engineering and designing AI solutions to clinical issues, and the role of data in the development of AI innovations. Study cases in the curriculum should include an AI recommendation that may present critical decision-making challenges. Finally, the ethical implications of AI in medicine must be at the forefront of any comprehensive medical education.
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 | 0.043 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".