Trial reportInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
Evaluation of a Medical Interview-Assistance System Using Artificial Intelligence for Resident Physicians Interviewing Simulated Patients: A Crossover, Randomized, Controlled Trial.
Trial report in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of the impact of artificial intelligence on educational outcomes in health professions education.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Differential Diagnosis Assessment in Ambulatory Care With a Digital Health History Device: Pseudorandomized Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Clinics: Enhancing Cardiology Practice.JMA journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical interviews are expected to undergo a major transformation through the use of artificial intelligence. However, artificial intelligence-based systems that support medical interviews are not yet widespread in Japan, and their usefulness is unclear. A randomized, controlled trial to determine the usefulness of a commercial medical interview support system using a question flow chart-type application based on a Bayesian model was conducted. Ten resident physicians were allocated to two groups with or without information from an artificial intelligence-based support system. The rate of correct diagnoses, amount of time to complete the interviews, and number of questions they asked were compared between the two groups. Two trials were conducted on different dates, with a total of 20 resident physicians participating. Data for 192 differential diagnoses were obtained. There was a significant difference in the rate of correct diagnosis between the two groups for two cases and for overall cases (0.561 vs. 0.393;
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.