Back

Generative Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education and Participatory Research for Social Action: A Human and AI Comparative Analysis

Juniu, S.; Castor, D.; Reyes Nieva, H.; Charon, R.; Amesty, S.

2026-05-21 medical education
10.64898/2026.05.14.26351842 medRxiv
Show abstract

Participatory qualitative methods such as Photovoice are increasingly used to link research with social action. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) may enhance data analysis, inference, and action planning within such participatory approaches. This study explored medical students' perceptions of social justice using conventional Photovoice analysis and assessed the potential contribution of generative AI (genAI). Nine students joined a six-week seminar, "Exploring the Concept of Social Justice Using Photovoice." An initial two-hour session covered ethics, the Photovoice framework, and photography techniques. Participants then captured images reflecting their views on social justice, wrote narratives, and engaged in guided group discussions. Human researchers and students conducted a three-stage Photovoice analysis: 1) selecting photographs, 2) contextualizing them with participant narratives, and 3) inductively coding themes. To explore how AI might support data analysis, the research team analyzed the same data with five generative tools including Sonix, ChatGPT, and Copilot. AI-generated themes and visual representations were compared with human-derived results for congruence, depth, and suggested action steps. Conventional analysis identified five major themes: (1) Social Justice and Inequality, (2) Contradictions and the Costs of Justice, (3) Community and Collective Action, (4) Environment and Environmental Justice, and (5) Perception, Subjectivity, and Perspective. AI-assisted analysis yielded six unified themes that closely aligned with human findings. Traditional Photovoice images conveyed authentic, lived experiences and strong emotional meaning, providing a powerful foundation for advocacy. AI-generated images and thematic summaries offered efficiency, creativity, and reduced researcher bias, improving generalizability. However, they lacked the emotional depth and contextual nuance present in participant-created visuals.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.6%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 6%
10.1%
3
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
8.4%
4
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.4%
5
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.3%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.3%
8
BMC Medical Education
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
9
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
10
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
11
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
12
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.7%
14
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
15
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
16
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
17
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
18
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.2%
19
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
20
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.9%
21
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
22
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
23
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 45%
0.7%
24
Developmental Biology
134 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%