Medical Students’ Perceptions of ChatGPT Use in Medical Learning: A Cross‑Sectional Survey at the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy of Marrakech
A cross-sectional survey of medical students at the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy of Marrakech reveals that while ChatGPT is widely adopted and perceived as an effective tool for enhancing learning autonomy and understanding, its integration into medical curricula requires pedagogical supervision and ethical guidelines to address concerns regarding reliability, data confidentiality, and clinical reasoning.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the modern classroom, a new kind of tutor has quietly entered the scene. It is not a person, but a computer program capable of generating human-like text, answering complex questions, and explaining difficult ideas in seconds. This technology, known as generative artificial intelligence, has rapidly become a part of daily life for students everywhere. In the field of medicine, where the volume of information to memorize is vast and the stakes for accuracy are incredibly high, these tools offer a tempting promise: a way to learn faster, understand deeper, and prepare more effectively for exams. However, this convenience comes with a shadow. Educators and doctors worry that relying too heavily on a machine might weaken a student's own ability to think critically, remember facts, or make sound judgments when no screen is present. The central question is no longer whether these tools exist, but how future doctors are actually using them, whether they find them helpful, and if they are aware of the risks involved in trusting a machine with their education.
A team of researchers at the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy in Marrakech, Morocco, decided to investigate this exact dynamic. They wanted to see how medical students in their own country were interacting with one of the most popular versions of this technology, a chatbot called ChatGPT. During the 2024–2025 academic year, the researchers invited every medical student at their university, from their first year of study through their final year, to share their experiences. In total, 1,628 students were invited, and 451 of them completed an anonymous online survey. The goal was to map out how these future physicians were using the tool, what they thought of its value, and what worries kept them up at night regarding its use.
The results revealed that the tool has already become a staple in the daily routine of these students. Nearly nine out of ten students reported using the chatbot. For those who used it, the experience was overwhelmingly positive. More than 90 percent of the users found the tool effective, and 94 percent said they were satisfied with it. Almost all of them intended to keep using it as they continued their studies. The students did not just use it for simple facts; they turned to it for deep learning. The most common use was to clarify confusing medical concepts, with nearly three-quarters of students using it for this purpose. It was also a major aid for exam preparation, with nearly half of the students using it to create practice questions or review for tests. Many reported that the tool helped them feel more confident and more independent in their learning, allowing them to study on their own terms without waiting for a teacher to explain a difficult topic.
When asked to compare this digital assistant to traditional study methods like textbooks or lectures, a clear majority of students felt the chatbot was more effective. They appreciated its ability to provide immediate, personalized answers and to simulate clinical scenarios. The students were not just passive consumers of this technology; they were actively integrating it into their workflow. They used it to generate flashcards, translate medical texts, and even help structure their academic writing. The sense of autonomy was strong, with over 80 percent of users feeling that the tool improved their ability to seek out information and study independently.
Despite this widespread adoption and high satisfaction, the students were not blind to the dangers. In fact, a significant portion of the group, nearly 70 percent, expressed serious ethical concerns. Their worries were not abstract; they were practical and specific. The most common fear was that students might become too dependent on the tool, losing their own ability to reason through a problem without it. They also worried about the reliability of the answers, knowing that the machine could sometimes make up facts or provide incorrect information. There were also concerns about keeping patient data private and the potential for the technology to change the relationship between a doctor and a patient. The students recognized that while the tool was powerful, it was not a substitute for human judgment or the essential skills of empathy and critical thinking.
The study also showed that the students were eager for guidance. More than 95 percent of them supported the idea of including artificial intelligence training in their official medical curriculum. They did not want to learn about these tools on their own; they wanted structured lessons on how to use them safely and critically. They suggested that the curriculum should include modules on how to verify information, how to ask the right questions, and how to spot errors. The researchers concluded that while the students had naturally embraced the technology, their education needed to catch up. The path forward, according to the findings, is not to ban these tools or to let students use them without supervision, but to integrate them carefully. By teaching students how to use these powerful systems responsibly, medical schools can ensure that future doctors remain sharp, critical thinkers who use technology as a partner rather than a crutch.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.