ArticleJMIR medical education2024
A Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)-Powered Chatbot as a Simulated Patient to Practice History Taking: Prospective, Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 9 of them syntheses 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
66 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Generative AI in Youth Mental Health Apps: Rapid Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Pooled it
- Usability and User Experience Assessment of Health Care Conversational Agents Using Validated Subjective Instruments: Systematic Review and Comparative Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2026Pooled it
- GenAI-Supported Virtual Patients in Health Care Education: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Large Language Model-Based Virtual Patient Systems for History-Taking in Medical Education: Comprehensive Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Pooled it
- Virtual patients in medical education: a bibliometric analysis based on the wos core collection and scopus databases.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Mapping artificial intelligence in problem-based and case-based medical education: a bibliometric analysis (2019-2026).Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Communication and medical errors: a bibliometric analysis of research trends and knowledge structures.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- The impact of generative AI on health professional education: A systematic review in the context of student learning.Medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of generative artificial intelligence-based teaching versus traditional teaching methods in medical education: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Real-Time Artificial Intelligence Diagnostic Copilot in Simulated Primary Care Consultations: Randomized Simulation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Trial
- An exploratory study of the use of artificial intelligence-based virtual patients to enhance dentist-patient communication training.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Impact of providing a customized guideline on virtual medical history taking in two serious games for medical education.Medical education online · 2025Trial
- Comparing AI chatbot simulation and peer role-play for OSCE preparation: a pilot randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Utility of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Japanese Medical Interview Training: Randomized Crossover Pilot Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Trial
- Feasibility study of using GPT for history-taking training in medical education: a randomized clinical trial.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Large language models improve clinical decision making of medical students through patient simulation and structured feedback: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Towards scalable psychological first aid training: an autoethnographic exploration of the potential of large language models in simulation-based learning.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Article
- AI for Clinical Competency Assessment: Scoping Review of Methods and Applications.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- AI Integration in Undergraduate Medical Education: Qualitative Study of Faculty Perspectives in the United Arab Emirates.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Large reasoning models as thinking machines for medicine.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Review
6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunication is a core competency of medical professionals and of utmost importance for patient safety. Although medical curricula emphasize communication training, traditional formats, such as real or simulated patient interactions, can present psychological stress and are limited in repetition. The recent emergence of large language models (LLMs), such as generative pretrained transformer (GPT), offers an opportunity to overcome these restrictions.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a GPT-driven chatbot to practice history taking, one of the core competencies of communication.
methodsWe developed an interactive chatbot interface using GPT-3.5 and a specific prompt including a chatbot-optimized illness script and a behavioral component. Following a mixed methods approach, we invited medical students to voluntarily practice history taking. To determine whether GPT provides suitable answers as a simulated patient, the conversations were recorded and analyzed using quantitative and qualitative approaches. We analyzed the extent to which the questions and answers aligned with the provided script, as well as the medical plausibility of the answers. Finally, the students filled out the Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ).
resultsA total of 28 students practiced with our chatbot (mean age 23.4, SD 2.9 years). We recorded a total of 826 question-answer pairs (QAPs), with a median of 27.5 QAPs per conversation and 94.7% (n=782) pertaining to history taking. When questions were explicitly covered by the script (n=502, 60.3%), the GPT-provided answers were mostly based on explicit script information (n=471, 94.4%). For questions not covered by the script (n=195, 23.4%), the GPT answers used 56.4% (n=110) fictitious information. Regarding plausibility, 842 (97.9%) of 860 QAPs were rated as plausible. Of the 14 (2.1%) implausible answers, GPT provided answers rated as socially desirable, leaving role identity, ignoring script information, illogical reasoning, and calculation error. Despite these results, the CUQ revealed an overall positive user experience (77/100 points).
conclusionsOur data showed that LLMs, such as GPT, can provide a simulated patient experience and yield a good user experience and a majority of plausible answers. Our analysis revealed that GPT-provided answers use either explicit script information or are based on available information, which can be understood as abductive reasoning. Although rare, the GPT-based chatbot provides implausible information in some instances, with the major tendency being socially desirable instead of medically plausible information.
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.