Generative AI · Education leadership

Actionable companion · Assessment and evidence of learning

From evidence to district action: Impact of generative AI in medical education in India: a systematic review

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. The district actions are proposed applications, not findings or recommendations attributed to the original authors. No additional peer review is asserted.

Read original paperSearch paper agentCC BY 4.0

Evidence and context

Health-professions education context: test transfer to K–12 rather than assuming it.

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

Abstract Background The advent of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has presented a fundamental change in the approach to medical education across the world. In India, where the medical education is facing a shortage in faculties and resources, generative AI (GenAI) has the potential of transforming this. This systematic review summarizes the current evidence on the impact, student readiness, and various ethical challenges and barriers of integration of AI into the medical curriculum. Methods We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and searched published articles in PubMed and Google Scholar from 2020 to 2025. The search yielded 19,777 articles, from which 11 studies focusing on Indian medical students were selected. The findings of these studies were analyzed using Laurillard’s six learning modes to gain a comprehensive pedagogical understanding. Result Our study revealed a significant finding: while high awareness and positive perception towards AI have been shown by Indian medical students, most of the students lack formal training. These selected studies show that the students mostly use generative AI for clearing doubts, making assignments, and self-directed learning, shifting from the ‘Acquisition’ to ‘Inquiry’ and ‘Production’ modes of Laurillard’s learning. Comparative Analysis showed that GenAI tools outperform students on standard exams, thus showing their potential. However, certain challenges also exist, including the risk of misinformation, over-reliance, potential decrease in critical thinking, and ethical concerns of data privacy. Conclusion Indian medical students are enthusiastically adopting GenAI, but their engagement is mostly unstructured and informal. A significant gap exists between the readiness of the students and the medical institutions. To maximize the potential use of GenAI, our institutions have to develop a structured curriculum, invest in faculty training, and establish ethical guidelines. Teamwork between policymakers, educators, and researchers is the need of the hour so that our future physicians will be ready to integrate AI-enabled healthcare. Syestematic review registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2MJVK. Keywords: artificial intelligence ethics, ChatGPT, curriculum integration, generative AI, India, medical education, systematic review

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. Redesign one low-stakes assessment: require a first attempt, an AI-assisted revision, a source-check log and a short oral explanation. Use the same rubric for the comparison task. 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, factual accuracy and unaided transfer on a fresh task. Record suspected misconduct separately from demonstrated evidence. 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

Azfar Mateen; Visesh Kumar; Ajay Kumar Singh; Berendra Yadav; Mala Mahto; Atiq Hassan; Nazim Nasir. Impact of generative AI in medical education in India: a systematic review. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (2025-12-17). https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2025.1704785

Companion prepared 2026-10-30. 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.