This comprehensive review examines the current state, impact, and future trajectories of artificial intelligence (AI) integration in medical education and professional training. The analysis synthesizes findings from systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and expert commentary published between 2020 and 2026 [1][4][10]. The review addresses the transformative potential of generative AI (GenAI) in reshaping clinical skill acquisition, the shift from cognitive scarcity to cognitive abundance, and the emergence of new competency frameworks for health professionals [2][11]. Key findings indicate that AI-integrated teaching produces statistically significant improvements in knowledge and clinical skill scores, with effect sizes exceeding one standard deviation in some trials [1][10]. However, evidence also reveals substantial heterogeneity, with some studies showing null or negative results depending on implementation quality [4][7]. The review examines the WHO's regulatory guidance on AI ethics and governance, emphasizing the need for robust frameworks to safeguard privacy, mitigate bias, and ensure equitable access [3][6][9]. It explores the ALEERRT-CA framework for AI-enhanced continuing professional development and the five principles for responsible AI adoption in health systems [11][12]. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research, curriculum design, and the integration of AI as an augmentative rather than substitutive educational technology [5].
Mikheil Jorbenadze· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
This comprehensive review provides a detailed analysis of the 50 mSv annual occupational radiation dose limit as codified in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulation 10 C.F.R. § 20.1201(a)(i). The paper traces the historical development of radiation protection standards from the early 20th century to the present, explaining the evolution from tolerance doses to the current system of dose limits based on stochastic and deterministic risk. It examines the physical and biological basis of dose limits, including the concepts of Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE), committed dose, and the distinction between whole-body and organ-specific limits. The review provides a detailed comparison between the U.S. NRC limit of 50 mSv per year and the international recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which recommend a 5‑year average of 20 mSv per year with a maximum of 50 mSv in any single year. The paper discusses the ALARA principle, dose reduction strategies, recordkeeping requirements, and the implications for health physics practice. It also addresses criticisms of the current system and considers future directions for occupational dose limits in light of emerging scientific evidence on low-dose radiation effects and the increasing use of AI and automation in radiation monitoring.
Mikheil Jorbenadze· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
This comprehensive review provides a detailed analysis of the 50 mSv annual occupational radiation dose limit as codified in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulation 10 C.F.R. § 20.1201(a)(i). The paper traces the historical development of radiation protection standards from the early 20th century to the present, explaining the evolution from tolerance doses to the current system of dose limits based on stochastic and deterministic risk. It examines the physical and biological basis of dose limits, including the concepts of Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE), committed dose, and the distinction between whole-body and organ-specific limits. The review provides a detailed comparison between the U.S. NRC limit of 50 mSv per year and the international recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which recommend a 5‑year average of 20 mSv per year with a maximum of 50 mSv in any single year. The paper discusses the ALARA principle, dose reduction strategies, recordkeeping requirements, and the implications for health physics practice. It also addresses criticisms of the current system and considers future directions for occupational dose limits in light of emerging scientific evidence on low-dose radiation effects and the increasing use of AI and automation in radiation monitoring.
Mikheil Jorbenadze· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
