Artificial Intelligence in Medical and Psychological Education: A Scoping Review and Suggested Curriculum for Medical Students (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing healthcare, significantly enhancing diagnostic accuracy, clinical decision-making, and operational efficiency. However, the pace of AI integration into medical education has lagged behind, leaving students inadequately prepared for the emerging challenges AI brings to healthcare. Key issues such as AI’s ethical implications, transparency, and inherent biases remain critical concerns that need to be addressed. While there is growing support for AI’s role in medical practice, many medical curricula still lack structured AI training programs, limiting students’ ability to fully leverage AI’s potential. OBJECTIVE This paper reviews the current state of AI education programs in medical and psychology training and proposes a model AI curriculum that can be used as a case example to illustrate how AI can be integrated effectively into medical education. METHODS A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines to analyze existing AI education programs. Searches were performed in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (2008–2023) for relevant studies. The inclusion criteria focused on programs designed for medical and psychological professionals. Data were extracted, synthesized narratively, and visualized. Screening was performed using Rayyan, and disagreements were resolved by reviewers. RESULTS From 5,364 records, 20 relevant programs were identified. The majority of programs (50%) were from the United States, with others coming from Canada, Germany, France, China, and the Netherlands. Topics covered included foundational AI concepts, programming, ethical concerns, governance, and AI’s role in clinical decision-making. Most programs were extracurricular (60%), and evaluation results highlighted that while technical skills were often taught, many programs lacked in-depth practical applications or hands-on experience with AI tools. Ethical and governance topics were also a common focus. In light of these findings, we propose five principles for a successful curriculum with a strong psychiatric perspective in order to both improve skills on AI and increase the attractiveness of psychiatry among medical students. CONCLUSIONS The integration of AI into medical and psychology curricula is essential for producing well-rounded healthcare professionals. To prepare students for AI’s role in healthcare, educational programs should be mandatory and focus on foundational AI knowledge, ethical considerations, data privacy, and clinical decision-making. These programs should align with the WHO’s guiding principles, ensuring that topics such as Explainable AI, Natural Language Processing (NLP), and algorithmic biases are comprehensively covered. Furthermore, it is crucial to foster collaboration with universities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to ensure equitable access to AI education, bridging global disparities in healthcare technology. Such efforts will contribute to the sustainable, inclusive growth of AI in healthcare, enabling all healthcare systems to benefit from advancements in 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 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 | 0.033 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".