Medical Education and Artificial Intelligence: Web of Science–Based Bibliometric Analysis (2013-2022)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Incremental advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) technology have facilitated its integration into various disciplines. In particular, the infusion of AI into medical education has emerged as a significant trend, with noteworthy research findings. Consequently, a comprehensive review and analysis of the current research landscape of AI in medical education is warranted. Objective: This study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis of pertinent papers, spanning the years 2013-2022, using CiteSpace and VOSviewer. The study visually represents the existing research status and trends of AI in medical education. Methods: Articles related to AI and medical education, published between 2013 and 2022, were systematically searched in the Web of Science core database. Two reviewers scrutinized the initially retrieved papers, based on their titles and abstracts, to eliminate papers unrelated to the topic. The selected papers were then analyzed and visualized for country, institution, author, reference, and keywords using CiteSpace and VOSviewer. Results: A total of 195 papers pertaining to AI in medical education were identified from 2013 to 2022. The annual publications demonstrated an increasing trend over time. The United States emerged as the most active country in this research arena, and Harvard Medical School and the University of Toronto were the most active institutions. Prolific authors in this field included Vincent Bissonnette, Charlotte Blacketer, Rolando F Del Maestro, Nicole Ledows, Nykan Mirchi, Alexander Winkler-Schwartz, and Recai Yilamaz. The paper with the highest citation was "Medical Students' Attitude Towards Artificial Intelligence: A Multicentre Survey." Keyword analysis revealed that "radiology," "medical physics," "ehealth," "surgery," and "specialty" were the primary focus, whereas "big data" and "management" emerged as research frontiers. Conclusions: The study underscores the promising potential of AI in medical education research. Current research directions encompass radiology, medical information management, and other aspects. Technological progress is expected to broaden these directions further. There is an urgent need to bolster interregional collaboration and enhance research quality. These findings offer valuable insights for researchers to identify perspectives and guide future research directions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.110 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".