A scoping review of artificial intelligence in medical education: BEME Guide No. 84

Систематический обзор области применения искусственного интеллекта в медицинском образовании: руководство BEME № 84
Diana Dolmans, Morris Gordon, Michelle Daniel, Aderonke Ajiboye, Hussein Uraiby, Nicole Y. Xu, Rangana Bartlett, Janice L. Hanson, Mary R. Haas, Maxwell Spadafore, Ciaran Grafton‐Clarke, Rayhan Yousef Gasiea, Colin Michie, Janet Corral, Brian Kwan, Satid Thammasitboon
2024-02-29

AI applicationsFACETS frameworkartificial intelligence in medical educationethical guidelinesrapid scoping review
BACKGROUND: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare, and there is a critical need for a nuanced understanding of how AI is reshaping teaching, learning, and educational practice in medical education. This review aimed to map the literature regarding AI applications in medical education, core areas of findings, potential candidates for formal systematic review and gaps for future research. METHODS: This rapid scoping review, conducted over 16 weeks, employed Arksey and O'Malley's framework and adhered to STORIES and BEME guidelines. A systematic and comprehensive search across PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and MedEdPublish was conducted without date or language restrictions. Publications included in the review spanned undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education, encompassing both original studies and perspective pieces. Data were charted by multiple author pairs and synthesized into various thematic maps and charts, ensuring a broad and detailed representation of the current landscape. RESULTS: The review synthesized 278 publications, with a majority (68%) from North American and European regions. The studies covered diverse AI applications in medical education, such as AI for admissions, teaching, assessment, and clinical reasoning. The review highlighted AI's varied roles, from augmenting traditional educational methods to introducing innovative practices, and underscores the urgent need for ethical guidelines in AI's application in medical education. CONCLUSION: The current literature has been charted. The findings underscore the need for ongoing research to explore uncharted areas and address potential risks associated with AI use in medical education. This work serves as a foundational resource for educators, policymakers, and researchers in navigating AI's evolving role in medical education. A framework to support future high utility reporting is proposed, the FACETS framework.
1
Most publications originated from North American and European regions, which together accounted for 68% of the evidence base.
2
The literature covered AI applications in admissions, teaching, assessment, and clinical reasoning, ranging from augmentation of traditional methods to innovative educational practices.
3
The proposed FACETS framework is intended to support higher-utility reporting in future research on AI in medical education.
4
The rapid scoping review synthesized 278 publications on artificial intelligence applications across undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education.
5
The review identifies an urgent need for ethical guidelines and further research addressing uncharted areas and potential risks of AI in medical education.

Artificial intelligence applications in medical education across undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education

The roles, educational applications, findings, ethical risks, and research gaps associated with AI in teaching, learning, assessment, admissions, and clinical reasoning

Publication Details
Publication Date
2024-02-29
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Cited by
509
Access Type
Author Information
Authors
Diana Dolmans
Morris Gordon
Michelle Daniel
Aderonke Ajiboye
Hussein Uraiby
Nicole Y. Xu
Rangana Bartlett
Janice L. Hanson
Mary R. Haas
Maxwell Spadafore
Ciaran Grafton‐Clarke
Rayhan Yousef Gasiea
Colin Michie
Janet Corral
Brian Kwan
Satid Thammasitboon
Explore further
Open the scid.ai AI chat with a ready-made request: it will find papers on a similar topic and help build a literature review.
Find similar papers in the chat
Make a presentation
100%