Undergraduate Medical Students’ and Interns’ Knowledge and Perception of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Artificial intelligence (AI) is playing an increasingly important role in healthcare and health professions education. This study explored medical students' and interns' knowledge of artificial intelligence (AI), perceptions of the role of AI in medicine, and preferences around the teaching of AI competencies. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the authors used a previously validated Canadian questionnaire and gathered responses from students and interns at KIST Medical College, Nepal. Face validity and reliability of the tool were assessed by administering the questionnaire to 20 alumni as a pilot sample (Cronbach alpha = 0.6). Survey results were analyzed quantitatively (p-value = 0.05). Results: In total 216 students (37% response rate) participated. The median AI knowledge score was 11 (interquartile range 4), and the maximum possible score was 25. The score was higher among final year students (p = 0.006) and among those with additional training in AI (p = 0.040). Over 49% strongly agreed or agreed that AI will reduce the number of jobs for doctors. Many expect AI to impact their specialty choice, felt the Nepalese health-care system is ill-equipped to deal with the challenges of AI, and opined every student of medicine should receive training on AI competencies. Conclusion: The lack of coverage of AI and machine learning in Nepalese medical schools has resulted in students being unaware of AI's impact on individual patients and the healthcare system. A high perceived willingness among respondents to learn about AI is a positive sign and a strong indicator of futuristic successful curricula changes. Systematic implementation of AI in the Nepalese healthcare system can be a potential tool in addressing health-care challenges related to resource and manpower constraints. Incorporating topics related to AI and machine learning in medical curricula can be a useful first step.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".