Agentic education · Learning science

Actionable companion · Assessment & reasoning

From AI evidence to responsible practice: Medical Student Experiences and Perceptions of ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence: Cross-Sectional Study

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not findings or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.

Read original paperSearch paper agentCC BY 4.0

Evidence and context

Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Higher education. Health-professions education findings do not establish effectiveness in K–12 classrooms.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize the way medicine is learned, taught, and practiced, and medical education must prepare learners for these inevitable changes. Academic medicine has, however, been slow to embrace recent AI advances. Since its launch in November 2022, ChatGPT has emerged as a fast and user-friendly large language model that can assist health care professionals, medical educators, students, trainees, and patients. While many studies focus on the technology’s capabilities, potential, and risks, there is a gap in studying the perspective of end users. Objective The aim of this study was to gauge the experiences and perspectives of graduating medical students on ChatGPT and AI in their training and future careers. Methods A cross-sectional web-based survey of recently graduated medical students was conducted in an international academic medical center between May 5, 2023, and June 13, 2023. Descriptive statistics were used to tabulate variable frequencies. Results Of 325 applicants to the residency programs, 265 completed the survey (an 81.5% response rate). The vast majority of respondents denied using ChatGPT in medical school, with 20.4% (n=54) using it to help complete written assessments and only 9.4% using the technology in their clinical work (n=25). More students planned to use it during residency, primarily for exploring new medical topics and research (n=168, 63.4%) and exam preparation (n=151, 57%). Male students were significantly more likely to believe that AI will improve diagnostic accuracy (n=47, 51.7% vs n=69, 39.7%; P=.001), reduce medical error (n=53, 58.2% vs n=71, 40.8%; P=.002), and improve patient care (n=60, 65.9% vs n=95, 54.6%; P=.007). Previous experience with AI was significantly associated with positive AI perception in terms of improving patient care, decreasing medical errors and misdiagnoses, and increasing the accuracy of diagnoses (P=.001, P<.001, P=.008, respectively). Conclusions The surveyed medical students had minimal formal and informal experience with AI tools and limited perceptions of the potential uses of AI in health care but had overall positive views of ChatGPT and AI and were optimistic about the future of AI in medical education and health care. Structured curricula and formal policies and guidelines are needed to adequately prepare medical learners for the forthcoming integration of AI in medicine.

What kind of evidence is this?

Supporting AI learning science · Survey / observational study

Stage: Higher education. Screening labels describe reported context and study-design language. They are not a risk-of-bias rating or proof of effectiveness for an age band.

Study methods · source passage

We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey of medical students in the United Arab Emirates. The Sheikh Khalifa Medical City Institutional Review Board approved this study with a waiver of informed consent (RS-804). We used the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) to guide our reporting [21] (Multimedia Appendix 1).

Limitations and uncertainty · source passage

Our study has several limitations. Given the recent launch of ChatGPT, survey respondents had limited experience with this tool during medical school and their clinical rotations. Also, although respondents were from multiple medical schools in several countries, data collection was conducted at 1 hospital, limiting generalizability. Only graduating medical students were surveyed; understanding the experiences and perceptions of all medical trainees and teaching faculty is important. Finally, the cross-sectional design provides a snapshot view and does not capture long-term trends and changes in attitudes or use habits over time.

Design the system before the pilot

Use this study to inform a learning mechanism or implementation question. It is not direct evidence that autonomous agents improve learning. Keep the proposed agent behavior separate from what the source actually tested.

  • Use common rubrics, blind scoring where feasible and a fresh unaided reasoning task. Document permissible assistance and avoid treating AI-detector scores as proof of misconduct.

A 90-day district pilot

  1. Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
  2. Days 16–30 · Design. Choose one disciplinary task. Require a first attempt, a documented AI consultation, a critique of the output and an independent explanation. Align the comparison group and scoring rubric with the same objective. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
  3. Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
  4. Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning and accuracy on a new task without AI. Distinguish model examination scores, student perceptions and actual learner gains; only the last directly tests educational benefit. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Saif M I Alkhaaldi; Carl H Kassab; Zakia Dimassi; Leen Oyoun Alsoud; Maha Al Fahim; Cynthia Al Hageh; Halah Ibrahim. Medical Student Experiences and Perceptions of ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence: Cross-Sectional Study. JMIR Medical Education (2023-12-22). https://doi.org/10.2196/51302

Companion prepared 2026-11-01. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.