What Are the Opportunities and Challenges of Using AI in Medical Education in Vietnam?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled: Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform medical training through adaptive learning, immersive simulations, automated assessments, and data-driven insights, offering solutions to persistent issues such as high student-to-faculty ratios, overcrowded classrooms, and limited clinical exposure. Globally, many universities have already embedded AI literacy and competencies into undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education programs, while in Vietnam, the use of AI in medical education remains limited and fragmented. Most students have little formal exposure to AI, and empirical evidence on faculty or institutional readiness is scarce. Experiences from other countries, including Malaysia, Palestine, and Oman, demonstrate that incremental adoption and faculty development can facilitate cultural acceptance and curricular innovation, providing useful lessons for Vietnam. At the same time, significant barriers remain. These include inadequate infrastructure in provincial universities, low levels of AI literacy among both students and educators, underdeveloped regulatory and ethical frameworks, and resistance to pedagogical change. Cost-effectiveness and sustainability are additional concerns in a middle-income context, where upfront investments must be balanced against long-term benefits and equitable access. Advancing AI in Vietnamese medical education will therefore require a coordinated national strategy that prioritizes infrastructure, AI literacy, faculty development, quality assurance, and sustainable funding models, alongside ethical and legal safeguards. By addressing these key foundations, Vietnam can harness AI not only to modernize medical education but also to strengthen preparedness for a digitally enabled health workforce.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".