Current landscape of generative artificial intelligence use as a search engine among resident physicians: Cross-sectional study
ABSTRACT
Background:
Acquiring generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) literacy and identifying physicians’ competencies that remain essential in the GenAI era are critical for resident physicians, who are highly susceptible to its influence, including those who are current non-users.
Objective:
This study examined the use of GenAI for medical consultation, AI literacy, and bedside behaviors in the management of infectious diseases among resident physicians.
Methods:
This cross-sectional study was conducted through an original questionnaire administered in January 2025 to participants of the General Medicine In-Training Examination, a nationwide computer-based test for postgraduate year-1 and year-2 resident physicians in Japan. Respondents’ attitudes toward GenAI use and their bedside behaviors in infectious disease management were assessed.
Results:
Of 9,179 examinees, 2,989 resident physicians (32.6%) from 546 hospitals completed the survey. A total of 1,124 participants (39.4%) reported using GenAI for medical consultation, while 1,726 (60.6%) were non-users. Only 144 users (13.0%) relied on it as a primary reference for differential diagnoses. Compared with non-users, users were more likely to understand limitations such as confabulation (74.1% vs. 58.4%) and to recognize competencies essential for future physicians in infectious disease management, including history-taking and physical examination (87.3% vs. 76.0%). Ethical considerations were less commonly addressed overall, with 47.3% examining fairness and 49.8% examining transparency. Awareness was greater among users than non-users (fairness, 56.3% vs. 41.5%; transparency, 58.9% vs. 43.8%).
Conclusions:
GenAI literacy among resident physicians in Japan remains limited, particularly among non-users. Given its rapid expansion, education on GenAI in clinical practice may be necessary for both users and non-users, emphasizing critical thinking and ethical considerations in patient care.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.