MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411683140 · doi:10.1101/2025.06.25.25328523

Attitudes and Perceptions of University Students and Postdoctoral Fellows in the Medical and Life Sciences Towards the Use of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in the Educational Process: A Large-Scale, International Cross-Sectional Survey

2025· preprint· en· W4411683140 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Y. Ng, Aimun Qadeer Shah, Emi Roni, Madiha Asna, Jasleen Brar, Sylvia Kathirkamanathan, Wendy Li, Cynthia Lokker, Alfonso Iorio, R. Brian Haynes, David Moher

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityImpactOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)PerceptionMedical educationCross-sectional studyPsychologyProcess (computing)MedicineComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence chatbots (AICs) are advanced systems capable of generating and processing human-like text, and are being increasingly integrated in various fields, including education. Despite their potential to significantly impact learning, little is known about university students’ and postdoctoral fellows’ (US&PD) views on AICs in educational settings. This study investigated the familiarity, perceptions, and factors influencing adoption of AICs by US&PDs in the life and medical sciences. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional online survey. Recruitment involved two approaches: (1) using R script on PubMED metadata to extract contact details of corresponding authors with recent MEDLINE-indexed publications, and (2) collecting publicly listed contact information of program administrators from the top 50 global, English-speaking universities, as ranked by the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) list. Both authors and administrators were contacted and requested to forward the survey to US&PDs. The survey was administered via SurveyMonkey from February 2 to March 18, 2024, with two reminder emails sent between February 14 and 26, 2024. Results A total of 1,209 responses were analyzed. Most respondents identified as female (62.07%) and were enrolled in doctoral (40.48%) or master’s programs (17.55%). Over 63% were familiar with AICs, with ChatGPT being the most used (60.3%). While many recognized the educational value of AICs, concerns about reliability and integration into academia persisted. Calls for more training and institutional support were common. Conclusions The study underscores the potential and challenges of AICs in education. While enthusiasm exists, significant concerns remain about their implementation, requiring targeted training and policy development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.271
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education→French-language works237,207→