Perceptions and Attitudes of Medical Students Toward the Integration of Large Language Models in Medical Education: Cross-Sectional Survey in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although artificial intelligence (AI) is being rapidly integrated into medical education, insights from medical students, particularly in the Chinese context, remain limited. Objective: This study was designed to explore Chinese medical students' perceptions of and attitudes toward the integration of AI into medical education, as well as the factors that may influence their perspectives. The findings of this research offer valuable insights to assist medical educators in the effective implementation of these innovative educational approaches. Methods: On the basis of the estimated total number of clinical medical students at the target institutions, the sample size was calculated to be 379. A web-based questionnaire survey was designed to investigate the acceptance level of medical students toward the application of AI. The questionnaire consisted of 14 questions across 4 dimensions, which included demographic characteristics, perceptions of AI application, willingness, and concerns. Each dimension contained 3 to 4 questions. Descriptive statistics were used to tabulate the frequency of each variable. Chi-square tests and multiple regression analyses were conducted to measure the influencing factors. Results: A total of 566 cross-sectional online surveys were distributed from December 2023 to January 2024 through a snowball sampling method. Finally, 490 medical students from various local tertiary medical centers were involved. Overall, a majority of the participants showed a positive attitude toward future learning and the usage of AI, manifested as totally willing to acquire relevant knowledge (222/490, 45.3%), totally willing to use AI tools (230/490, 46.9%), and totally desiring that schools would offer AI-related courses (230/490, 46.9%). However, there is still a large proportion (392/490, 80.0%) of participants who expressed concerns regarding ethical issues. The findings also indicated that gender and educational level were significantly correlated with the AI application. Specifically, regression analysis indicated that male participants were more inclined to acquire AI information through social media (odds ratio 0.458, 95% CI 0.33-0.67; P<.001) and that male or graduate-level participants were more likely to use AI for academic writing purposes (odds ratio 0.476, 95% CI 0.38-0.82; P=.001 for male; odds ratio 1.552, 95% CI 1.32-1.77; P=.009 for graduate students, respectively). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that a general awareness of AI's role in medical education is evident among students. However, subgroup-specific differences must be taken into account, particularly when designing and optimizing educational strategies integrated with AI. This consideration is critical to ensuring that such tools align with the diverse learning needs of distinct student groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".