Actionable companion · Assessment and evidence of learning

From evidence to district action: Medical Student Experiences With ChatGPT: National Cross-Sectional Study

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.

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:

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly influencing medical student education, with AI-driven chatbots, such as ChatGPT, emerging as powerful study tools. While these technologies offer numerous benefits, they also pose challenges that warrant the adaptation of medical school curricula. Objective This study examines medical students’ perceptions and use of ChatGPT. We hypothesize that ChatGPT is widely used for academic support, but concerns remain regarding reliability and academic integrity. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study from August 25 to December 10, 2024, in the United States. Students in all years of medical training who were enrolled in accredited allopathic or osteopathic medical schools were eligible to participate. Data were collected using an anonymous online questionnaire, which was distributed through institutional mailing lists. Overall, 188 schools were reached, of which 14 (7.4%) responded and agreed to distribute the survey. A total of 177 participants completed the survey. Survey items consisted primarily of Likert-scale and multiple-choice questions. Primary outcome measures included self-reported frequency of ChatGPT use, perceived usefulness of ChatGPT, and ChatGPT use habits. Results Overall, 98.9% (175/177) of participants had heard of ChatGPT, with 88.7% (157/177) reporting having used it; 62.7% (111/177) identified as female, and 52% (92/177) had completed at least 1 block of clinical rotations. Medical students most often used ChatGPT to understand complex medical concepts, prepare for exams, and generate study materials. Moreover, 46.5% (73/157) used it to help complete medical school assignments. Medical students also reported using it clinically, with the most common use being to generate differential diagnoses. Notably, 21.0% (33/157) of participants responded having used ChatGPT to help write clinical notes. Moreover, 73.9% (116/157) reported that their experience with ChatGPT improved their overall perception of AI’s potential to assist in medical practice, and 86.6% (135/157) believed that having ChatGPT as a resource would make them more effective physicians. Statistical analyses were performed using the Pearson chi-square test with α=.05. Students who reported moderate or advanced baseline understanding of AI were more likely to practice conscientious use habits, such as cross-checking (odds ratio [OR] 2.31, 95% CI 1.08-4.97) and editing (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.05-5.71) ChatGPT output before using it, than those who reported a basic or limited understanding. Conclusions Our study is among the few to examine medical student perceptions of ChatGPT at a national level. We examined responsible use habits to identify areas in which reliance on this technology may lead users astray. We found that ChatGPT is being used to complete academic assignments and write clinical notes, raising concerns about information verification, AI literacy, patient confidentiality, and ethical use. Together, these findings highlight the need for structured AI education to help students leverage these technologies effectively while mitigating risks associated with misinformation and overreliance on AI.

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

Alan Yuesheng Xu; Skye Speakman; Vincent Salvatore Piranio; Robert Medina; Michelle Liu; Chris Lamprecht; Nicolas Abchee; Meghan Brennan. Medical Student Experiences With ChatGPT: National Cross-Sectional Study. JMIR Formative Research (2026-03-09). https://doi.org/10.2196/76838

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.