ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
AI literacy in undergraduate medical education: a competency-based interpretive framework for curriculum and assessment.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming a core educational concern in undergraduate medical education as AI-enabled tools increasingly shape clinical workflows, learning environments, and patient care. The challenge is no longer simply whether AI should be included in the curriculum, but how AI literacy should be bounded for undergraduate learners and translated into teachable, observable, and assessable educational outcomes. This focused conceptual narrative review synthesized literature on AI literacy and related constructs in undergraduate medical education, using a structured search and interpretive synthesis with competency-based medical education (CBME) as an interpretive lens. PubMed and ERIC were searched for English-language literature from 1 January 2020 to 15 April 2026. Local screening records identified 94 standardized bibliography records, 66 records screened after deduplication, 40 full-text reports assessed, and 30 publications contributing to the final synthesis. Five recurring domains were identified: Foundational AI knowledge; applied clinical interpretation and use; data literacy and critical appraisal; ethics, law, and professional responsibility; and human-AI collaboration and professional formation. Through a CBME lens, these domains can be translated into learning outcomes, contextualized tasks, observable performances, and programmatic assessment evidence. The literature most strongly supports conceptual clarification, domain identification, and curricular translation, whereas evidence for longitudinal development, observable performance, and validated undergraduate assessment remains limited. The proposed framework, examples, milestones, and rubric anchors are synthesis-informed design propositions that require empirical validation before high-stakes use.
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.