ArticleBMC medical education2026
Medical students perceptions and attitudes toward the use of generative artificial intelligence in clinical decision-making: a nationwide cross-sectional survey in China.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe deep integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare is reshaping medical practice and education globally. As an emerging technology, generative AI (GenAI) demonstrates significant potential for application in clinical decision-making. Systematically understanding medical students’ perceptions and attitudes toward GenAI is crucial for promoting its responsible implementation in the medical field.
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate Chinese medical students’ perceptions, usage behaviors, and attitudes regarding the use of GenAI for clinical decision-making.
methodsThis exploratory cross-sectional study was conducted via an online questionnaire from January to March 2025. A total of 1062 medical students from 168 universities and colleges across 29 provinces in China were recruited through convenience sampling. The survey, developed based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and validated by expert review and pilot testing, descriptively assessed three dimensions: usage, perceptions, and attitudes toward GenAI in clinical decision-making. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and 95% confidence intervals, were used for data analysis.
resultsThe vast majority of students (99.4%, n = 1056) reported prior experience with GenAI. The primary application was course learning (71.8%, 95% CI [0.690–0.744]); in contrast, direct use in clinical decision-making was reported less frequently (44.0%, 95% CI [0.410–0.470]). Students widely recognized GenAI’s benefits in broadening knowledge (73.4%, 95% CI [0.706–0.759]), fostering multi-perspective clinical thinking (67.8%, 95% CI [0.649–0.705]), and improving efficiency (63.1%, 95% CI [0.601–0.659]). They also noted significant limitations: primarily its inability to account for individual patient differences in diagnosis (70.7%, 95% CI [0.679–0.734]) and susceptibility to input data bias (65.6%, 95% CI [0.627–0.684]). Most students (71.7%, n = 762) were willing to use GenAI in the future, yet strongly opposed its complete replacement of healthcare professionals (79.4%, n = 843) and advocated for safeguards such as strict output auditing (69.6%, 95% CI [0.668–0.723]).
conclusionThis study reveals that medical students maintain a “cautious embrace” attitude toward GenAI: actively utilizing them while consistently emphasizing the central importance of professional judgment. This finding suggests that medical education should focus on cultivating future healthcare professionals who can skillfully employ GenAI as a supportive tool, while steadfastly adhering to critical AI literacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.