Students broadly endorse LLMs as educational aids (74% positive) while 61% raise integrity concerns, 59% cite hallucination risk, and 82% report no institutional guidance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2031: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i? A median 74% of students rated LLMs as beneficial, highest for concept summarisation, mnemonic creation, and practice question generation (24/28 studies). → Bodke Parag 2026 q2 i? 61% expressed academic integrity concern versus 11% self-reported dishonest use; 59% worried about hallucination risk yet only 37% could identify a hallucination in a test scenario; 82% reported no formal institutional guidance (25/28 studies). → Bodke Parag 2026

Evidence¶

Bodke Parag 2026¶

Bodke Parag, Jumle Rahul. (2026). Large language models in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review of examination performance, knowledge acquisition, and learner perceptions. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09999-7

q2 · i? · review · r2

Narrative synthesis of 28 perception studies (surveys, focus groups, mixed methods), only 7 using validated instruments. The review reports median 74% positive, 61% integrity concern, 11% dishonest use, 59% hallucination concern, 37% identification, and "82% of students reported receiving no formal guidance".

"82% of students reported receiving no formal guidance, policy communication, or LLM-related training from their medical school—a finding consistent across 25 of 28 studies and observed uniformly across high-income and LMIC settings"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Faculty hold more tempered views of LLMs than students (51% vs 74% positive), centred on clinical reasoning development and content reliability — related
• Scholars raise three main concerns about AI chatbots in education: reliability and accuracy, fair assessment, and ethical issues — related
• The most reported risks of AI tools in science and chemistry education are ethical issues, including gender and racial bias, hallucinations, copyright infringement, and plagiarism — related
• The most frequently cited ethical concerns about GenAI in research were hallucinated facts, fabricated references, and misleading content — related
• GenAI raises privacy, transparency, bias and accuracy concerns in group work, though empirical evidence remains limited — related
• The main concern in all critical evaluations was the veracity of ChatGPT-provided references, which often do not exist — related
• Students report negative experiences with ChatGPT including inaccurate outputs, lack of emotional connection, and risk of overreliance, which constrain competence — related
• General-purpose LLMs show accuracy and reliability limits, including hallucinations and task-specific accuracy below perfect, making them risky as expert advice sources — related
• Hallucination, fabrication and reduced explanation accuracy limit ChatGPT's potential as a medical learning tool — related