Awareness and Attitude Toward Artificial Intelligence Among Medical Students and Pathology Trainees: Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is set to shape the future of medical practice. The perspective and understanding of medical students are critical for guiding the development of educational curricula and training. Objective: This study aims to assess and compare medical AI-related attitudes among medical students in general medicine and in one of the visually oriented fields (pathology), along with illuminating their anticipated role of AI in the rapidly evolving landscape of AI-enhanced health care. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study that used a web-based survey composed of a closed-ended questionnaire. The survey addressed medical students at all educational levels across the 5 public medical schools, along with pathology residents in 4 residency programs in Jordan. Results: A total of 394 respondents participated (328 medical students and 66 pathology residents). The majority of respondents (272/394, 69%) were already aware of AI and deep learning in medicine, mainly relying on websites for information on AI, while only 14% (56/394) were aware of AI through medical schools. There was a statistically significant difference in awareness among respondents who consider themselves tech experts compared with those who do not (P=.03). More than half of the respondents believed that AI could be used to diagnose diseases automatically (213/394, 54.1% agreement), with medical students agreeing more than pathology residents (P=.04). However, more than one-third expressed fear about recent AI developments (167/394, 42.4% agreed). Two-thirds of respondents disagreed that their medical schools had educated them about AI and its potential use (261/394, 66.2% disagreed), while 46.2% (182/394) expressed interest in learning about AI in medicine. In terms of pathology-specific questions, 75.4% (297/394) agreed that AI could be used to identify pathologies in slide examinations automatically. There was a significant difference between medical students and pathology residents in their agreement (P=.001). Overall, medical students and pathology trainees had similar responses. Conclusions: AI education should be introduced into medical school curricula to improve medical students' understanding and attitudes. Students agreed that they need to learn about AI's applications, potential hazards, and legal and ethical implications. This is the first study to analyze medical students' views and awareness of AI in Jordan, as well as the first to include pathology residents' perspectives. The findings are consistent with earlier research internationally. In comparison with prior research, these attitudes are similar in low-income and industrialized countries, highlighting the need for a global strategy to introduce AI instruction to medical students everywhere in this era of rapidly expanding technology.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".