Evolution of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education From 2000 to 2024: Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) into medical education has gained significant attention for its potential to enhance teaching and learning outcomes. However, it lacks a comprehensive study depicting the academic performance and status of AI in the medical education domain. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the social patterns, productive contributors, knowledge structure, and clusters since the 21st century. METHODS: Documents were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database from 2000 to 2024. VOSviewer, Incites, and Citespace were used to analyze the bibliometric metrics, which were categorized by country, institution, authors, journals, and keywords. The variables analyzed encompassed counts, citations, H-index, impact factor, and collaboration metrics. RESULTS: Altogether, 7534 publications were initially retrieved and 2775 were included for analysis. The annual count and citation of papers exhibited exponential trends since 2018. The United States emerged as the lead contributor due to its high productivity and recognition levels. Stanford University, Johns Hopkins University, National University of Singapore, Mayo Clinic, University of Arizona, and University of Toronto were representative institutions in their respective fields. Cureus, JMIR Medical Education, Medical Teacher, and BMC Medical Education ranked as the top four most productive journals. The resulting heat map highlighted several high-frequency keywords, including performance, education, AI, and model. The citation burst time of terms revealed that AI technologies shifted from imaging processing (2000), augmented reality (2013), and virtual reality (2016) to decision-making (2020) and model (2021). Keywords such as mortality and robotic surgery persisted into 2023, suggesting the ongoing recognition and interest in these areas. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable insights and guidance for researchers who are interested in educational technology, as well as recommendations for pioneering institutions and journal submissions. Along with the rapid growth of AI, medical education is expected to gain much more benefits.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.106 | 0.159 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".