Knowledge and Perceptions of AI Among Medical Students in Morocco: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming medical practice by enhancing diagnostic accuracy, streamlining workflows, and supporting clinical decision-making. However, the integration of AI into health care largely depends on the preparedness and acceptance of future physicians. Therefore, assessing their knowledge and perceptions of AI is crucial. Notably, no study has yet evaluated these factors among medical students in Morocco. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe Moroccan medical students' knowledge and perception of AI. Methods: A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted from February to May 2023 at the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Agadir, Morocco. All undergraduate medical students from the first to the seventh year were eligible, excluding graduate students. A snowball sampling method was used, with a calculated minimum sample size of 385. To account for potential missing data, and given the target population size of 1150, the sample size was increased by 50%. Data were collected through a validated online questionnaire and analyzed using JAMOVI 2.6.2, with significance set at P<.05. Results: A total of 580 medical students (female n=363, 62.6%; mean age 21.3, SD 2.13 years; response rate 50.4%) participated. While 96% (n=557) had heard of AI, 73.1% (n=424) were unfamiliar with key AI terminologies, only 11% (n=64) understood AI functioning, and 14.8% (n=86) were familiar with everyday AI applications. Objectively, 88.1% (n=511) correctly identified deep learning as a method for automated pattern recognition, with 71.5% (n=415) acknowledging its interpretability challenges. First-cycle students demonstrated significantly higher familiarity with AI terms (83/156, 53.2% vs 51/156, 32.7% vs 22/156, 14.1%; P<.001). In terms of perception, 83% (n=482) viewed AI as a collaborative tool, 84.1% (n=488) anticipated a transformative impact on medicine, 39% (n=227) expected noninterventional medicine to be replaced within a decade, and 57.1% (n=331) believed certain specialties could be supplanted by AI. Regarding AI in medical education, 90% (n=522) supported its integration into the curriculum and 94% (n=546) expected enhanced learning conditions, but only 48.1% (n=279) felt ready to use AI tools upon graduation. Additionally, gender and technology familiarity significantly influenced specific perceptions, with technology-savvy students reporting greater readiness (P<.001) and women more likely to view AI as revolutionary (315/488, 64.5% vs 173/488, 35.5%; P=.02). Conclusions: Medical students' knowledge of AI is still limited, but their awareness of the potential impact of this technology on future practice and their openness to its integration into the medical curriculum constitute a promising basis for the successful implementation of these new concepts in our health care system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".