MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396700068 · doi:10.2196/58355

Assessing AI Awareness and Identifying Essential Competencies: Insights From Key Stakeholders in Integrating AI Into Medical Education

2024· article· en· W4396700068 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julia-Astrid Moldt, Teresa Festl‐Wietek, Wolfgang Fuhl, Susanne Zabel, Manfred Claassen, Samuel Wagner, Kay Nieselt, Anne Herrmann‐Werner

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungEberhard Karls Universität TübingenDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsPreprintKey (lock)Knowledge managementPsychologyData scienceComputer scienceEngineering ethicsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringWorld Wide WebComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The increasing importance of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care has generated a growing need for health care professionals to possess a comprehensive understanding of AI technologies, requiring an adaptation in medical education. Objective: This paper explores stakeholder perceptions and expectations regarding AI in medicine and examines their potential impact on the medical curriculum. This study project aims to assess the AI experiences and awareness of different stakeholders and identify essential AI-related topics in medical education to define necessary competencies for students. Methods: The empirical data were collected as part of the TüKITZMed project between August 2022 and March 2023, using a semistructured qualitative interview. These interviews were administered to a diverse group of stakeholders to explore their experiences and perspectives of AI in medicine. A qualitative content analysis of the collected data was conducted using MAXQDA software. Results: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 38 participants (6 lecturers, 9 clinicians, 10 students, 6 AI experts, and 7 institutional stakeholders). The qualitative content analysis revealed 6 primary categories with a total of 24 subcategories to answer the research questions. The evaluation of the stakeholders' statements revealed several commonalities and differences regarding their understanding of AI. Crucial identified AI themes based on the main categories were as follows: possible curriculum contents, skills, and competencies; programming skills; curriculum scope; and curriculum structure. Conclusions: The analysis emphasizes integrating AI into medical curricula to ensure students' proficiency in clinical applications. Standardized AI comprehension is crucial for defining and teaching relevant content. Considering diverse perspectives in implementation is essential to comprehensively define AI in the medical context, addressing gaps and facilitating effective solutions for future AI use in medical studies. The results provide insights into potential curriculum content and structure, including aspects of AI in medicine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical EducationSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207