ArticleBMC medical education2026
The AI adoption paradox in Chinese medical education: a multi-institution cross-sectional study of usage patterns, critical literacy gaps, and adoption profiles among 3,194 undergraduate medical students.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence tools are widely used by Chinese medical students, yet systematic evidence on usage patterns, critical literacy gaps, and influencing factors remains limited, particularly from large-scale multi-institution studies. This study investigates whether a hypothesised structural "artificial intelligence adoption paradox"-high perceived benefits coexisting with weak information verification competence and unclear academic integrity norms-exists among Chinese medical students.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among 3,194 medical students, with 90.4% from Shanxi and supplementary samples from three additional institutions in Beijing and Hunan. A purpose-built twenty-five-item questionnaire assessed artificial intelligence usage, critical evaluation, academic writing, and ethical attitudes. Internal consistency was confirmed for multi-item domains (Cronbach's alpha range: 0.71-0.84). Descriptive statistics, Spearman correlations, logistic regression, and K-means cluster analysis were applied.
resultsArtificial intelligence adoption was pervasive, with 49.8% of students using artificial intelligence often or always in daily life and 84.5% perceiving efficiency gains. However, in cross-sectional comparison across year groups, confidence in information verification was 47.2% among Year 1 students compared to 35.0% among Year 5 students, and ethical reflection showed a similar pattern in this cross-sectional sample (Year 1: 69.8% vs. Year 4: 48.8%; Year 5: 51.0%). These cross-sectional differences may reflect cohort effects rather than within-person change. Daily artificial intelligence use correlated with perceived efficiency but not with discernment confidence. Males demonstrated higher discernment confidence than females, a difference that warrants further investigation given potential confounding with academic year distribution. Cluster analysis identified three exploratory user profiles: low-intensity adopters, intensive all-domain users, and study-selective users (mean silhouette coefficient = 0.31, indicating moderate cluster separation). A 21.5-percentage-point gap between verification intent and confidence revealed a "knowing-doing gap." Only 37.0% of students considered direct use of artificial intelligence-generated content as plagiarism, indicating substantial normative uncertainty.
conclusionsThis multi-institution cross-sectional study of 3,194 undergraduate Chinese medical students provides empirical support for the hypothesised artificial intelligence adoption paradox: high artificial intelligence use coexists with limited discernment confidence and declining ethical reflection across year groups in this cross-sectional sample. However, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference, and the observed patterns may reflect cohort differences rather than within-person change. The three identified profiles suggest potential avenues for differentiated pedagogical strategies. Medical curricula should integrate critical artificial intelligence literacy, verification skills, and clear integrity norms from the earliest academic year.
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.