MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417076441 · doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2025.102534

Artificial intelligence in pharmacy education: A scoping review of current integration & global perceptions

2025· article· en· W4417076441 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyAccreditationPharmacy practicePerceptionQuality (philosophy)MEDLINEMultistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping healthcare, including pharmacy, requiring AI-proficient pharmacy graduates. This necessitates an understanding of how AI is utilized in pharmacy education. This scoping review aims to summarize current literature on AI in pharmacy education, including its implementation and perceptions among students and faculty, and examine the alignment of these applications with accreditation standards to inform future curriculum development. METHODS: A literature search was performed across PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, and Google Scholar, for studies on AI in pharmacy education. Articles were categorized as innovation or perception studies. Innovation studies underwent thematic analysis to identify practical applications, while perception studies captured AI familiarity and willingness for curricular integration. AI applications were mapped to the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) and Canadian Council for Accreditation of Pharmacy Programs (CCAPP) standards. RESULTS: Twenty articles (10 innovation, 10 perception) were included. Faculty utilized AI for evaluation, assessment, and reflective writing analysis. Students used AI for personalized learning, enhancing communication, and problem-based learning. Some studies reported high AI familiarity; others showed limited knowledge. Nevertheless, a strong willingness to integrate AI into pharmacy education was observed, with students desiring more AI-focused curricula. Mapping AI applications to accreditation standards demonstrated that AI integration can support educational outcomes and competency requirements. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight potential AI applications in pharmacy education, underscoring the need to incorporate AI into pharmacy curricula. Alignment with accreditation standards suggests that AI integration addresses evolving professional needs and maintains quality standards for pharmacy programs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.235
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.340 · 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