ArticleBMJ open2026
Teaching AI ethics in medical schools: a scoping review protocol on the ethical-technical balance in curricular frameworks.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in healthcare, ranging from diagnostic tools to clinical decision support systems, is transforming medical practice and education. However, without deliberate integration of ethics, there is a risk that medical education will reproduce a technosolutionist orientation by privileging efficiency and data-driven outputs over patient autonomy, justice and professional integrity. While AI-related courses are increasingly being introduced into medical curricula, ethical considerations often remain peripheral, with most frameworks emphasising technical skills over moral reasoning. As future clinicians will face complex ethical challenges related to autonomy, safety, bias, transparency and accountability in AI-integrated clinical settings, there is an urgent need to evaluate how ethics is incorporated into AI education. With AI curricula still in their formative stages, this moment presents a critical opportunity to proactively design ethical components, rather than introducing them after harms have emerged. This scoping review aims to systematically map the ethical-technical balance in AI-related medical education curricula, identifying current practices, gaps and opportunities for curriculum development. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The review will address how ethical considerations are integrated into AI-related curricula in medical education and examine the balance between ethical and technical content. A comprehensive search strategy will be employed across multiple databases, including MEDLINE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, EBSCO, the Virtual Health Library, the Bioethics Literature Database and PhilPapers, as well as grey literature sources such as institutional reports, curricula and policy documents. Publications from January 2020 to December 2025 will be included. Data will be charted and analysed using descriptive qualitative content analysis, followed by a theory-informed interpretive analysis drawing on the hidden curriculum theory of medical education. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethics approval, as it involves analysis of publicly available data. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and presented at relevant conferences and workshops focused on medical education or bioethics.
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.