Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39871336›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2025

A systematic review of the impact of artificial intelligence on educational outcomes in health professions education.

Eva Feigerlova, Hind Hani, Ellie Hothersall-Davies

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Eva FeigerlovaFaculté de médecine, maïeutique et métiers de la santé, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France. eva.feigerlova@fulbrightmail.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5434-7320
Hind HaniFaculté de médecine, maïeutique et métiers de la santé, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France.
Ellie Hothersall-DaviesCentre for Medical Education, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has a variety of potential applications in health professions education and assessment; however, measurable educational impacts of AI-based educational strategies on learning outcomes have not been systematically evaluated.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted using electronic databases (CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, Proquest, Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) to identify studies published until October 1st 2024, analyzing the impact of AI-based tools/interventions in health profession assessment and/or training on educational outcomes. The present analysis follows the PRISMA 2020 statement for systematic reviews and the structured approach to reporting in health care education for evidence synthesis.

resultsThe final analysis included twelve studies. All were single centers with sample sizes ranging from 4 to 180 participants. Three studies were randomized controlled trials, and seven had a quasi-experimental design. Two studies were observational. The studies had a heterogenous design. Confounding variables were not controlled. None of the studies provided learning objectives or descriptions of the competencies to be achieved. Three studies applied learning theories in the development of AI-powered educational strategies. One study reported the analysis of the authenticity of the learning environment. No study provided information on the impact of feedback activities on learning outcomes. All studies corresponded to Kirkpatrick's second level evaluating technical skills or quantifiable knowledge. No study evaluated more complex tasks, such as the behavior of learners in the workplace. There was insufficient information on training datasets and copyright issues.

conclusionsThe results of the analysis show that the current evidence regarding measurable educational outcomes of AI-powered interventions in health professions education is poor. Further studies with a rigorous methodological approach are needed. The present work also highlights that there is no straightforward guide for evaluating the quality of research in AI-based education and suggests a series of criteria that should be considered.

trial registrationMethods and inclusion criteria were defined in advance, specified in a protocol and registered in the OSF registries ( https://osf.io/v5cgp/ ). CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: not applicable.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHealth OccupationsHumansLearningAI-based training and assessmentArtificial intelligenceEducational outcomesHealth professionsLearning theories and principles

Identifiers

PMID39871336
PMCPMC11773843

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.