Novel Blended Learning on Artificial Intelligence for Medical Students: Qualitative Interview Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are becoming increasingly relevant in everyday clinical practice, with Food and Drug Administration-approved AI solutions now available in many specialties. This development has far-reaching implications for doctors and the future medical profession, highlighting the need for both practicing physicians and medical students to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to effectively use and evaluate these technologies. Currently, however, there is limited experience with AI-focused curricular training and continuing education. Objective: This paper first introduces a novel blended learning curriculum including one module on AI for medical students in Germany. Second, this paper presents findings from a qualitative postcourse evaluation of students' knowledge and attitudes toward AI and their overall perception of the course. Methods: Clinical-year medical students can attend a 5-day elective course called "Medicine in the Digital Age," which includes one dedicated AI module alongside 4 others on digital doctor-patient communication; digital health applications and smart devices; telemedicine; and virtual/augmented reality and robotics. After course completion, participants were interviewed in semistructured small group interviews. The interview guide was developed deductively from existing evidence and research questions compiled by our group. A subset of interview questions focused on students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding medical AI, and their overall course assessment. Responses were analyzed using Mayring's qualitative content analysis. This paper reports on the subset of students' statements about their perception and attitudes toward AI and the elective's general evaluation. Results: We conducted a total of 18 group interviews, in which all 35 (100%) participants (female=11, male=24) from 3 consecutive course runs participated. This produced a total of 214 statements on AI, which were assigned to the 3 main categories "Areas of Application," "Future Work," and "Critical Reflection." The findings indicate that students have a nuanced and differentiated understanding of AI. Additionally, 610 statements concerned the elective's overall assessment, demonstrating great learning benefits and high levels of acceptance of the teaching concept. All 35 students would recommend the elective to peers. Conclusions: The evaluation demonstrated that the AI module effectively generates competences regarding AI technology, fosters a critical perspective, and prepares medical students to engage with the technology in a differentiated manner. The curriculum is feasible, beneficial, and highly accepted among students, suggesting it could serve as a teaching model for other medical institutions. Given the growing number and impact of medical AI applications, there is a pressing need for more AI-focused curricula and further research on their educational impact.
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 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 | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".