Generative artificial intelligence use in medical research: A medical student vs. physician survey from Saudi Arabia

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) such as ChatGPT, is increasingly used to generate research ideas, aid in literature reviews, and support clinical reasoning. While its adoption is rapidly growing worldwide, concerns persist regarding accuracy, bias, data privacy, and academic integrity. Understanding how physicians and medical students perceive and use these tools is critical for developing effective guidelines. This study aimed to assess familiarity, usage patterns, perceived benefits, and ethical concerns surrounding ChatGPT and other GenAI platforms among physicians and medical students in Saudi Arabia.

A cross-sectional survey was conducted between April 19 and July 7, 2025. The study included a total of 417 respondents: 182 physicians from multiple Saudi major academic hospitals and 235 medical students from six universities across Saudi Arabia. Recruitment was via online and on-site methods using QR codes and survey links. A validated questionnaire addressed demographics, prior research experience, ChatGPT and other GenAI use, perceived benefits, applications, and ethical concerns. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 24, applying Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests to compare groups. We compared intact groups as they exist in practice; findings are interpreted in light of inherent differences in age and clinical experience, without formal adjustment.

The use of GenAI in research was higher among medical students (73%) compared to physicians (59%). Most medical students had used ChatGPT (95% vs 81%, p < 0.001), whereas physicians more often reported using other GenAI tools (48% vs 29%, p < 0.001). Physicians most often used GenAI for academic writing (81%), while students preferred summarizing findings (75%). Nearly all students (99%) and physicians (89%) found ChatGPT easy to learn, and a majority in both groups acknowledged improvements in research efficiency (85% vs 80%), time reduction (84% vs 91%), and overall quality (77% vs 74%). Physicians expressed greater concern over data privacy (73%), while students emphasized accuracy and reliability as the key issue (77%).

Both physicians and medical students are increasingly embracing GenAI for research purposes. Nonetheless, prevalent concerns about reliability and ethics highlight the need for clear guidelines and training programs to ensure responsible use of GenAI in future medical research. Group contrasts are interpreted in light of inherent differences in age and clinical experience.