aceModerate evidence
Published recordHealthProblem Space
More
Undergraduate medical students and artificial intelligence: A global systematic review and meta-analysis using a knowledge–attitude–practice framework
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2780raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- 124d0279f32a…check it
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI), including deep learning and large language models, is increasingly reshaping healthcare and medical education. Since the public release of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, medical students have become a particularly exposed group, often engaging with these technologies without standardized curricular guidance. Although previous reviews have explored readiness, acceptance, or anxiety, the relationship between students' knowledge, attitudes, and practical engagement wi…
The problem
A systematic review of 43 studies, with 11 pooled, found undergraduate medical students scored only moderate on AI knowledge (0.55; 95% CI 0.49-0.61) even though attitudes were more positive (0.64).
What this doesn’t fix
Only 11 of the 43 studies could be pooled because of differences in instruments and reporting, and heterogeneity among them remained high.
Sources
1 on file- Medical Teacherdoi:10.1080/0142159x.2026.2663855
What the review found when it combined the studies
These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.
Attitudes toward AI among undergraduate medical students (MAIRS-MS scale)
Proportion 0.64 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.69)
11 studies · search to September 30, 2025
The review’s own words
In the 11 studies included in the quantitative synthesis, pooled estimates showed moderate knowledge (0.55; 95% CI: 0.49-0.61), positive attitudes (0.64; 95% CI: 0.59-0.69), and comparable practice levels (0.63; 95% CI: 0.59-0.67).
Practice with AI among undergraduate medical students (MAIRS-MS scale)
Proportion 0.63 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.67)
11 studies · search to September 30, 2025
The review’s own words
In the 11 studies included in the quantitative synthesis, pooled estimates showed moderate knowledge (0.55; 95% CI: 0.49-0.61), positive attitudes (0.64; 95% CI: 0.59-0.69), and comparable practice levels (0.63; 95% CI: 0.59-0.67).
Knowledge of AI among undergraduate medical students (MAIRS-MS scale)
Proportion 0.55 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.61)
11 studies · search to September 30, 2025
The review’s own words
In the 11 studies included in the quantitative synthesis, pooled estimates showed moderate knowledge (0.55; 95% CI: 0.49-0.61), positive attitudes (0.64; 95% CI: 0.59-0.69), and comparable practice levels (0.63; 95% CI: 0.59-0.67).
Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results
Cite this record
v1Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2780, v1: “Undergraduate medical students and artificial intelligence: A global systematic review and meta-analysis using a knowledge–attitude–practice framework.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2780 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 124d0279f32a49a4…
Change history
1 versionEvery change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.
Certified into the record
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page
Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2780 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.