Knowledge and attitudes of medical students in Lebanon toward artificial intelligence: A national survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study assesses the knowledge and attitudes of medical students in Lebanon toward Artificial Intelligence (AI) in medical education. It also explores the students' perspectives regarding the role of AI in medical education as a subject in the curriculum and a teaching tool. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study using an online survey consisting of close-ended questions. The survey targets medical students at all medical levels across the 7 medical schools in Lebanon. Results: A total of 206 medical students responded. When assessing AI knowledge sources (81.1%) got their information from the media as compared to (9.7%) from medical school curriculum. However, Students who learned the basics of AI as part of the medical school curriculum were more knowledge about AI than their peers who did not. Students in their clinical years appear to be more knowledgeable about AI in medicine. The advancements in AI affected the choice of specialty of around a quarter of the students (26.8%). Finally, only a quarter of students (26.5%) want to be assessed by AI, even though the majority (57.7%) reported that assessment by AI is more objective. Conclusions: Education about AI should be incorporated in the medical school curriculum to improve the knowledge and attitudes of medical students. Improving AI knowledge in medical students will in turn increase acceptance of AI as a tool in medical education, thus unlocking its potential in revolutionizing 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".