Generative AI-related academic misconduct among medical students: co-occurrence with conventional misconduct and associated factors
Abstract
BackgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced forms of academic misconduct that may occur beyond established patterns of cheating. It remains unclear whether these behaviors replace conventional misconduct or coexist with it among the same students, particularly in medical education. We estimated the past-year prevalence, mapped the overlap between AI-related and non-AI-related misconduct, and examined modifiable correlates.MethodsWe conducted an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey at a medical university in eastern China in September 2026. Students reported on 12 conventional and AI-related academic behaviors during the period immediately preceding the survey. The primary AI-related outcome involved the submission of AI-generated work without the required disclosure and the use of AI paraphrasing or translation to evade detection. The use of AI to generate answers in an assessment was analyzed separately because authorization and disclosure were not measured in this context. We also assessed an intention score that reflected respondents’ willingness to submit AI-generated work as their own and to use AI-based paraphrasing or rewriting to evade plagiarism or AI detection measures. Four co-occurrence profiles were compared, and exploratory hierarchical linear and logistic models were fitted with robust inference and internal bootstrap correction.ResultsOf the 421 submissions, 359 met the prespecified quality criteria. A total of 64 students (17.8%, 95% CI: 14.2–22.1) reported a primary AI-related behavior, 52 (14.5%, 95% CI: 11.1–18.6) reported a conventional behavior, and 79 (22.0%, 95% CI: 18.0–26.6) reported at least one primary AI-related or conventional behavior. The profiles were categorized as follows: neither profile (280 students, 78.0%), conventional-only profile (15 students, 4.2%), AI-only profile (27 students, 7.5%), and both profiles (37 students, 10.3%). The assessment-answer item was reported by 67 students (18.7%) and analyzed separately. In exploratory adjusted models, perceived peer completion of undisclosed AI work and the neutralization of AI use were associated with the primary outcome, while perceived opportunity and neutralization were associated with intention.ConclusionIn this single-university sample, the reported AI-related and conventional behaviors showed both overlap and distinct characteristics. The findings are correlational and do not establish whether AI use caused misconduct. Clear task-level guidance and assessment methods that make authorship visible are reasonable options for the future evaluation; however, their effectiveness was not tested in this study.
Related
- Occurrence Proportion and Associated Factors of Respiratory Failure During Hospitalization in Chinese Patients With AECOPD: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
- Hazardous Chemicals Associated with Plastics and Plastic Waste: Environmental Occurrence and Toxicity of TCDD, DEHP, BPA, and Acrylonitrile.
- Dimethylacetamide-associated liver injury in workers: clinical patterns of latency, selective occurrence, and implications for occupational surveillance
- The extent of intervertebral disc removal is associated with the occurrence of Modic change after percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy
- Co-Occurrence Patterns of Symptom and Functional Burden Associated with Tofacitinib and Upadacitinib: A Multidimensional Analysis of Spontaneous Reports in Rheumatoid Arthritis.
BibTeX
@article{yang2026generative,
title = {{Generative AI-related academic misconduct among medical students: co-occurrence with conventional misconduct and associated factors}},
author = {Xiuhong Yang},
journal = {Frontiers in Public Health},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3389/fpubh.2026.2010823},
url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2026.2010823},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Generative AI-related academic misconduct among medical students: co-occurrence with conventional misconduct and associated factors
AU - Xiuhong Yang
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/06
JO - Frontiers in Public Health
DO - 10.3389/fpubh.2026.2010823
UR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2026.2010823
AB - BackgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced forms of academic misconduct that may occur beyond established patterns of cheating. It remains unclear whether these behaviors replace conventional misconduct or coexist with it among the same students, particularly in medical education. We estimated the past-year prevalence, mapped the overlap between AI-related and non-AI-related misconduct, and examined modifiable correlates.MethodsWe conducted an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey at a medical university in eastern China in September 2026. Students reported on 12 conventional and AI-related academic behaviors during the period immediately preceding the survey. The primary AI-related outcome involved the submission of AI-generated work without the required disclosure and the use of AI paraphrasing or translation to evade detection. The use of AI to generate answers in an assessment was analyzed separately because authorization and disclosure were not measured in this context. We also assessed an intention score that reflected respondents’ willingness to submit AI-generated work as their own and to use AI-based paraphrasing or rewriting to evade plagiarism or AI detection measures. Four co-occurrence profiles were compared, and exploratory hierarchical linear and logistic models were fitted with robust inference and internal bootstrap correction.ResultsOf the 421 submissions, 359 met the prespecified quality criteria. A total of 64 students (17.8%, 95% CI: 14.2–22.1) reported a primary AI-related behavior, 52 (14.5%, 95% CI: 11.1–18.6) reported a conventional behavior, and 79 (22.0%, 95% CI: 18.0–26.6) reported at least one primary AI-related or conventional behavior. The profiles were categorized as follows: neither profile (280 students, 78.0%), conventional-only profile (15 students, 4.2%), AI-only profile (27 students, 7.5%), and both profiles (37 students, 10.3%). The assessment-answer item was reported by 67 students (18.7%) and analyzed separately. In exploratory adjusted models, perceived peer completion of undisclosed AI work and the neutralization of AI use were associated with the primary outcome, while perceived opportunity and neutralization were associated with intention.ConclusionIn this single-university sample, the reported AI-related and conventional behaviors showed both overlap and distinct characteristics. The findings are correlational and do not establish whether AI use caused misconduct. Clear task-level guidance and assessment methods that make authorship visible are reasonable options for the future evaluation; however, their effectiveness was not tested in this study.
SN - 2296-2565
ER -