Nicole Dubosh | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

AI as Teammate: Rethinking Task Distribution in Medical Training

Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, into medical training has prompted concerns about learner over-reliance, misuse, and erosion of foundational clinical competencies. We propose a conceptual reframing at the decision level: the problem is not misuse but misclassification - a mechanistic failure of real-time metacognitive evaluation in selecting a subzone-inappropriate AI interaction mode. Drawing on "SCAN" (Substitute, Complement, Aid, Non-Negotiable), a human-centric decision-making framework for generative AI task allocation grounded in Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development and metacognition, we advance the emerging social-constructivist conversation around AI in medical education by offering a testable account of AI's role in clinical reasoning development. This framework yields testable predictions for how misclassification can be detected, mitigated, and, more importantly, prevented in the clinical learning environment. Regarding clinical reasoning development, we show how trajectories of skill acquisition (upskilling) and failure (the triad of skill failure: de-skilling, never-skilling, and mis-skilling) operate at the individual task level in ways that fixed-phase, cohort-wide treatments fail to capture. We further identify passive engagement within correctly classified AI-scaffolded tasks as a particularly insidious, detection-resistant pathway to mis-skilling - one requiring subzone re-identification from AI assistance to expert assistance, with human experts serving as epistemic auditors. The paper operationalizes SCAN for clinical curriculum design, supervision, and assessment, and opens an empirical research agenda grounded in cognitive science. This paradigm shift from misuse to misclassification is not semantic: it offers educators a clear perspective on what to look for, what to assess, and what to intervene on.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Assessing Group-level Gender Bias in Professional Evaluations: The Case of Medical Student End-of-Shift Feedback

Although approximately 50% of medical school graduates today are women, female physicians tend to be underrepresented in senior positions, make less money than their male counterparts and receive fewer promotions. There is a growing body of literature demonstrating gender bias in various forms of evaluation in medicine, but this work was mainly conducted by looking for specific words using fixed dictionaries such as LIWC and focused on recommendation letters. We use a dataset of written and quantitative assessments of medical student performance on individual shifts of work, collected across multiple institutions, to investigate the extent to which gender bias exists in a day-to-day context for medical students. We investigate differences in the narrative comments given to male and female students by both male or female faculty assessors, using a fine-tuned BERT model. This allows us to examine whether groups are written about in systematically different ways, without relying on hand-crafted wordlists or topic models. We compare these results to results from the traditional LIWC method and find that, although we find no evidence of group-level gender bias in this dataset, terms related to family and children are used more in feedback given to women.

cs.CL↗