ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: A Cross-Sectional Study of Usage Patterns and Perceptions Among Medical Students at a Brazilian Public University.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To describe self-reported artificial intelligence (AI) use and perceptions of benefits, risks, and curricular integration among medical students with previous AI contact at a Brazilian public university. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional survey included a convenience sample of 189 students aged 18 years or older in Years 1-4 of medical school who reported previous contact with AI tools applied to medical education. Data were collected from March to July 2026 using a researcher-developed electronic questionnaire without formal validation and summarized descriptively using available responses. Results: Daily or weekly academic AI use was reported by 76.2% (144/189). Exposure to AI as a learning resource in a course was reported by 38.3% (72/188). Perceived improvement in differential diagnosis was reported by 57.8% (108/187), whereas 60.3% (114/189) perceived a risk of harmful dependence affecting human clinical judgment. Optional and controlled curricular integration was preferred by 72.0% (136/189). Conclusion: Among respondents with previous AI contact, frequent use coexisted with perceived benefits and concerns about dependence. These findings can support local discussion and further educational evaluation but do not establish objective learning effects or determine appropriate curricular approaches.
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.