Understanding Prospective Physicians’ Intention to Use Artificial Intelligence in Their Future Medical Practice: Configurational Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prospective physicians are expected to find artificial intelligence (AI) to be a key technology in their future practice. This transformative change has caught the attention of scientists, educators, and policy makers alike, with substantive efforts dedicated to the selection and delivery of AI topics and competencies in the medical curriculum. Less is known about the behavioral perspective or the necessary and sufficient preconditions for medical students' intention to use AI in the first place. OBJECTIVE: Our study focused on medical students' knowledge, experience, attitude, and beliefs related to AI and aimed to understand whether they are necessary conditions and form sufficient configurations of conditions associated with behavioral intentions to use AI in their future medical practice. METHODS: (January 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic). Following established guidelines, we applied necessary condition analysis and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to analyze the data. RESULTS: Findings from the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis show that the intention to use AI is only observed when students have a strong belief in the role of AI (individually necessary condition); certain AI profiles, that is, combinations of knowledge and experience, attitudes and beliefs, and academic level and gender, are always associated with high intentions to use AI (equifinal and sufficient configurations); and profiles associated with nonhigh intentions cannot be inferred from profiles associated with high intentions (causal asymmetry). CONCLUSIONS: Our work contributes to prior knowledge by showing that a strong belief in the role of AI in the future of medical professions is a necessary condition for behavioral intentions to use AI. Moreover, we suggest that the preparation of medical students should go beyond teaching AI competencies and that educators need to account for the different AI profiles associated with high or nonhigh intentions to adopt AI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".