Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly shaping medical education through adaptive learning systems, simulations, and large language models. These tools can enhance knowledge retention, clinical reasoning, and feedback, while raising concerns related to equity, bias, and institutional readiness. Methods: This narrative review examined AI applications in medical and health-profession education. A structured search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (2010–October 2025), supplemented by grey literature, identified empirical studies, reviews, and policy documents addressing AI-supported instruction, simulation, communication, procedural skills, assessment, or faculty development. Non-educational clinical AI studies were excluded. Results: AI facilitates personalized and interactive learning, improving clinical reasoning, communication practice, and simulation-based training. However, linguistic bias in Natural language processing (NLP) tools may disadvantage non-native English speakers, and limited digital infrastructure hinders adoption in rural or low-resource settings. When designed inclusively, AI can amplify accessibility for learners with disabilities. Faculty and students commonly report low confidence and infrequent use of AI tools, yet most support structured training to build competence. Conclusions: AI can shift medical education toward more adaptive, learner-centered models. Effective adoption requires addressing bias, ensuring equitable access, strengthening infrastructure, and supporting faculty development. Clear governance policies are essential for safe and ethical integration.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Mateusz Michalczak
Wiktoria Zgoda
Jakub Michalczak
AI
Jagiellonian University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Michalczak et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69401f142d562116f28fa56c — DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ai6120322
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: