ArticleScientific reports2024
Leveraging large language models to construct feedback from medical multiple-choice Questions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Education Research: Integrating AI-Enabled Interactive Case-Based Learning in a Preclinical Neurosciences Course.Neurology. Education · 2026Article
- Education Research: Quality of Narrative Feedback Generated by a Large Language Model Compared With Expert Faculty for Case-Based Learning in Neurology Education.Neurology. Education · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted feedback in pharmacology education: a pilot evaluation of a custom generative model.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- A scoping review of the use of generative artificial intelligence tools in health profession education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Large Language Models for the National Radiological Technologist Licensure Examination in Japan: Cross-Sectional Comparative Benchmarking and Evaluation of Model-Generated Items Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Clinical Failure of General-Purpose AI in Photographic Scoliosis Assessment: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Evaluating large language models for criterion-based grading from agreement to consistency.NPJ science of learning · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exams like the formative Progress Test Medizin can enhance their effectiveness by offering feedback beyond numerical scores. Content-based feedback, which encompasses relevant information from exam questions, can be valuable for students by offering them insight into their performance on the current exam, as well as serving as study aids and tools for revision. Our goal was to utilize Large Language Models (LLMs) in preparing content-based feedback for the Progress Test Medizin and evaluate their effectiveness in this task. We utilize two popular LLMs and conduct a comparative assessment by performing textual similarity on the generated outputs. Furthermore, we study via a survey how medical practitioners and medical educators assess the capabilities of LLMs and perceive the usage of LLMs for the task of generating content-based feedback for PTM exams. Our findings show that both examined LLMs performed similarly. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages. Our survey results indicate that one LLM produces slightly better outputs; however, this comes at a cost since it is a paid service, while the other is free to use. Overall, medical practitioners and educators who participated in the survey find the generated feedback relevant and useful, and they are open to using LLMs for such tasks in the future. We conclude that while the content-based feedback generated by the LLM may not be perfect, it nevertheless can be considered a valuable addition to the numerical feedback currently provided.
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.