Artificial Intelligence Teaching as Part of Medical Education: Qualitative Analysis of Expert Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine is expected to increase significantly in the upcoming years. Advancements in AI technology have the potential to revolutionize health care, from aiding in the diagnosis of certain diseases to helping with treatment decisions. Current literature suggests the integration of the subject of AI in medicine as part of the medical curriculum to prepare medical students for the opportunities and challenges related to the use of the technology within the clinical context. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the relevant knowledge and understanding of the subject of AI in medicine and specify curricula teaching content within medical education. METHODS: For this research, we conducted 12 guideline-based expert interviews. Experts were defined as individuals who have been engaged in full-time academic research, development, or teaching in the field of AI in medicine for at least 5 years. As part of the data analysis, we recorded, transcribed, and analyzed the interviews using qualitative content analysis. We used the software QCAmap and inductive category formation to analyze the data. RESULTS: The qualitative content analysis led to the formation of three main categories ("Knowledge," "Interpretation," and "Application") with a total of 9 associated subcategories. The experts interviewed cited knowledge and an understanding of the fundamentals of AI, statistics, ethics, and privacy and regulation as necessary basic knowledge that should be part of medical education. The analysis also showed that medical students need to be able to interpret as well as critically reflect on the results provided by AI, taking into account the associated risks and data basis. To enable the application of AI in medicine, medical education should promote the acquisition of practical skills, including the need for basic technological skills, as well as the development of confidence in the technology and one's related competencies. CONCLUSIONS: The analyzed expert interviews' results suggest that medical curricula should include the topic of AI in medicine to develop the knowledge, understanding, and confidence needed to use AI in the clinical context. The results further imply an imminent need for standardization of the definition of AI as the foundation to identify, define, and teach respective content on AI within medical curricula.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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".