MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407022608 · doi:10.1080/10872981.2025.2459910

Digital health competences and AI beliefs as conditions for the practice of evidence-based medicine: a study of prospective physicians in Canada

2025· article· en· W4407022608 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gerit Wagner, Mickaël Ringeval, Louis Raymond, Guy Paré

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education Online · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationMedicineFamily medicineAlternative medicinePsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) has become pivotal in enhancing medical care and patient outcomes. With the diffusion of innovation in healthcare organizations, EBM can be expected to depend on medical professionals’ competences with digital health (dHealth) and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies.Objective We aim to investigate the effect of dHealth competences and perceptions of AI on the adoption of EBM among prospective physicians. By focusing on dHealth and AI technologies, the study seeks to inform the redesign of medical curricula to better prepare students for the demands of evidence-based medical practice.Methods A cross-sectional survey was administered online to students at the University of Montreal’s medical school, which has approximately 1,400 enrolled students. The survey included questions on students’ dHealth competences, perceptions of AI, and their practice of EBM. Using structural equation modeling (SEM), we analyzed data from 177 respondents to test our research model.Results Our analysis indicates that medical students possess foundational knowledge competences of dHealth technologies and perceive AI to play an important role in the future of medicine. Yet, their experiential competences with dHealth technologies are limited. Our findings reveal that experiential dHealth competences are significantly related to the practice of EBM (β = 0.42, p < 0.001), as well as students’ perceptions of the role of AI in the future of medicine (β = 0.39, p < 0.001), which, in turn, also affect EBM (β = 0.19, p < 0.05).Conclusions The study underscores the necessity of enhancing students’ competences related to dHealth and considering their perceptions of the role of AI in the medical profession. In particular, the low levels of experiential dHealth competences highlight a promising starting point for training future physicians while simultaneously strengthening their practice of EBM. Accordingly, we suggest revising medical curricula to focus on providing students with practical experiences with dHealth and AI technologies.

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)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.403 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Education OnlineSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207