Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32617320›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020

Artificial intelligence-tutoring problem-based learning in ophthalmology clerkship.

Dongxuan Wu, Yifan Xiang, Xiaohang Wu, Tongyong Yu, Xiucheng Huang, Yuxian Zou, Zhenzhen Liu, Haotian Lin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Artificial intelligence in corneal diseases: A narrative review.Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 2024
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Digital Education in Ophthalmology.Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Dongxuan WuState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Yifan XiangState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiaohang WuState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Tongyong YuState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiucheng HuangState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Yuxian ZouState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhenzhen LiuState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Haotian LinState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is an increasingly popular tool in medical investigations. However, AI's potential of aiding medical teaching has not been explored. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of AI-tutoring problem-based-learning (PBL) in ophthalmology clerkship and to assess the student evaluations of this module.

methodsThirty-eight Grade-two students in ophthalmology clerkship at Sun Yat-Sen University were randomly assigned to two groups. In Group A, students learned congenital cataracts through an AI-tutoring PBL module by exploring and operating an AI diagnosis platform. In Group B, students learned congenital cataracts through traditional lecture given with the same faculty. The improvement in student performance was evaluated by comparing the pre- and post-lecture scores of a specific designed test using paired-T tests. Student evaluations of AI-tutoring PBL were measured by a 17-item questionnaire.

resultsThe post-lecture scores were significantly higher than the pre-lecture scores in both groups (Group A: P<0.0001, Group B: P<0.0001). The improvement of group A in the part of sign and diagnosis test (Part I) was more significant than that of group B (P=0.016). However, there was no difference in the improvement in the part of treatment plan test (Part II) between two groups (P=0.556). Overall, all respondents were satisfied and agreed that AI-tutoring PBL was helpful, effective, motive and beneficial to help develop critical and creative thinking.

conclusionsThe application of AI-tutoring PBL into ophthalmology clerkship improved students' performance and satisfaction. AI-tutoring PBL teaching showed advantage in promoting students' understanding of signs of diseases. The instructors play an indispensable role in AI-tutoring PBL curriculum.

Indexed as

Artificial-intelligenceophthalmology clerkshipproblem-based learning

Identifiers

PMID32617320
PMCPMC7327320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.