Differences in Expert Perspectives on AI Training in Medical Education: Secondary Analysis of a Multinational Delphi Study
Abstract
Abstract In this secondary analysis of a multinational Delphi study, experts from low- and middle-income countries were less likely than those from high-income countries to consider artificial intelligence (AI) learning outcomes mandatory in preregistration medical education, potentially reflecting underlying global inequalities in medical AI education and highlighting the need for adaptable AI competency frameworks.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Improving the translation of search strategies using the Polyglot Search Translator: a randomized controlled trial
- Nutritional, Physical, Cognitive, and Combination Interventions and Frailty Reversal Among Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- Clinical characteristics and risk factors associated with COVID-19 severity in patients with haematological malignancies in Italy: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study
- A randomized, controlled trial of oral propranolol in infantile hemangioma
- Clinical phenotypes of delirium during critical illness and severity of subsequent long-term cognitive impairment: a prospective cohort study
- Increased physical activity improves sleep and mood outcomes in inactive people with insomnia: a randomized controlled trial
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.