Curriculum frameworks and educational programs in artificial intelligence for medical students, residents, and practicing physicians: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review is to synthesize knowledge from the literature on curriculum frameworks and current educational programs that focus on the teaching and learning of artificial intelligence (AI) for medical students, residents, and practicing physicians. INTRODUCTION: To advance the implementation of AI in clinical practice, physicians need to have a better understanding of AI and how to use it within clinical practice. Consequently, medical education must introduce AI topics and concepts into the curriculum. Curriculum frameworks are educational road maps to teaching and learning. Therefore, any existing AI curriculum frameworks must be reviewed and, if none exist, such a framework must be developed. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include articles that describe curriculum frameworks for teaching and learning AI in medicine, irrespective of country. All types of articles and study designs will be included, except conference abstracts and protocols. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Keywords will first be identified from relevant articles. Another search will then be conducted using the identified keywords and index terms. The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Scopus. Gray literature will also be searched. Articles will be limited to the English and French languages, commencing from the year 2000. The reference lists of all included articles will be screened for additional articles. Data will then be extracted from included articles and the results will be presented in a table.
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 | 0.124 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.012 |
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".