Assessing Generative AI Adoption, Tool Preferences, and Cognitive Reliance Among Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background and Objectives: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have entered medical education faster than guidance for their responsible use. Although a rapidly expanding 2024–2026 literature has examined generative AI adoption, attitudes, and AI literacy among healthcare students, comparatively little is known about which specific tools medical students prefer or whether reliance on them carries measurable cognitive risks. We characterized adoption patterns, tool preferences, perceived benefits, and determinants of cognitive overdependence among medical students. Methods: A single-center cross-sectional survey was administered to 141 medical students across preclinical and clinical years at a single institution. A 28-item instrument captured usage patterns, perceived learning benefit, output trust, verification behavior, and AI overdependence risk. Analyses included t-tests, ANOVA, chi-square tests, Pearson correlations, and hierarchical regression. Results: Unless otherwise specified, values are reported as group mean scores on 1–5 Likert agreement scales or as percentages of respondents. ChatGPT was the primary tool for 69.5% of respondents, followed by Claude (12.1%). Daily users reported greater perceived learning benefit than infrequent users (4.14 vs. 3.36; p < 0.001). Clinical students verified AI outputs more often than preclinical students (3.69 vs. 3.21; p < 0.001), while preclinical students showed higher reliance (p = 0.002); verification moderated overdependence risk across academic years (interaction p = 0.041). AI familiarity (β = 0.31) and verification habit (β = −0.22) were the strongest predictors of integration acceptance (R2 = 0.34). Conclusions: Reliance and verification habits diverge by training stage; curricula should pair AI literacy with explicit verification training to mitigate overdependence. As a single-center, self-report study, these findings require multi-center confirmation; nonetheless, to our knowledge, this is among the first studies to jointly profile students’ tool-specific reliability perceptions and to identify verification behavior as a moderator that buffers familiarity-driven overdependence.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Medical Education
Published
2026-07-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/ime5030066
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessing Generative AI Adoption, Tool Preferences, and Cognitive Reliance Among Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Marius Militaru, Melania Lavinia Bratu, Florina Nicoleta Buleu, Daian Ionel Popa et al.
International Medical Education
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Assessing Generative AI Adoption, Tool Preferences, and Cognitive Reliance Among Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Marius Militaru, Melania Lavinia Bratu, Florina Nicoleta Buleu, Daian Ionel Popa, Codrina Mihaela Levai, Iulius Jugănaru, Sonia Burtic
article en

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have entered medical education faster than guidance for their responsible use. Although a rapidly expanding 2024–2026 literature has examined generative AI adoption, attitudes, and AI literacy among healthcare students, comparatively little is known about which specific tools medical students prefer or whether reliance on them carries measurable cognitive risks. We characterized adoption patterns, tool preferences, perceived benefits, and determinants of cognitive overdependence among medical students. Methods: A single-center cross-sectional survey was administered to 141 medical students across preclinical and clinical years at a single institution. A 28-item instrument captured usage patterns, perceived learning benefit, output trust, verification behavior, and AI overdependence risk. Analyses included t-tests, ANOVA, chi-square tests, Pearson correlations, and hierarchical regression. Results: Unless otherwise specified, values are reported as group mean scores on 1–5 Likert agreement scales or as percentages of respondents. ChatGPT was the primary tool for 69.5% of respondents, followed by Claude (12.1%). Daily users reported greater perceived learning benefit than infrequent users (4.14 vs. 3.36; p < 0.001). Clinical students verified AI outputs more often than preclinical students (3.69 vs. 3.21; p < 0.001), while preclinical students showed higher reliance (p = 0.002); verification moderated overdependence risk across academic years (interaction p = 0.041). AI familiarity (β = 0.31) and verification habit (β = −0.22) were the strongest predictors of integration acceptance (R2 = 0.34). Conclusions: Reliance and verification habits diverge by training stage; curricula should pair AI literacy with explicit verification training to mitigate overdependence. As a single-center, self-report study, these findings require multi-center confirmation; nonetheless, to our knowledge, this is among the first studies to jointly profile students’ tool-specific reliability perceptions and to identify verification behavior as a moderator that buffers familiarity-driven overdependence.

International Medical EducationVol. 5(3)
Victor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timișoara (RO), Institute e-Austria Timisoara (RO), Romanian Academy (RO)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.