MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389042814 · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000255

An evidence-based approach to artificial intelligence education for medical students: A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4389042814 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nikola Pupic, Aryan Ghaffari-zadeh, Ricky Hu, Rohit Singla, Kathryn E. Darras, Anna Karwowska, Bruce B. Forster

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Digital Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationCurriculumThematic analysisDelphi methodPsychologySystematic reviewInclusion (mineral)MEDLINEMedicineComputer scienceQualitative researchArtificial intelligencePedagogySocial psychologyPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The exponential growth of artificial intelligence (AI) in the last two decades has been recognized by many as an opportunity to improve the quality of patient care. However, medical education systems have been slow to adapt to the age of AI, resulting in a paucity of AI-specific education in medical schools. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the current evidence-based recommendations for the inclusion of an AI education curriculum in undergraduate medicine. Six databases were searched from inception to April 23, 2022 for cross sectional and cohort studies of fair quality or higher on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, systematic, scoping, and integrative reviews, randomized controlled trials, and Delphi studies about AI education in undergraduate medical programs. The search yielded 991 results, of which 27 met all the criteria and seven more were included using reference mining. Despite the limitations of a high degree of heterogeneity among the study types and a lack of follow-up studies evaluating the impacts of current AI strategies, a thematic analysis of the key AI principles identified six themes needed for a successful implementation of AI in medical school curricula. These themes include ethics, theory and application, communication, collaboration, quality improvement, and perception and attitude. The themes of ethics, theory and application, and communication were further divided into subthemes, including patient-centric and data-centric ethics; knowledge for practice and knowledge for communication; and communication for clinical decision-making, communication for implementation, and communication for knowledge dissemination. Based on the survey studies, medical professionals and students, who generally have a low baseline knowledge of AI, have been strong supporters of adding formal AI education into medical curricula, suggesting more research needs to be done to push this agenda forward.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.009
Bibliometrics0.0220.017
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.550
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.026 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Digital HealthSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207