Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40001164›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Quality assurance and validity of AI-generated single best answer questions.

Ayla Ahmed, Ellen Kerr, Andrew O'Malley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 8 papers.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Ayla AhmedUniversity of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Ellen KerrUniversity of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Andrew O'MalleyUniversity of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK. aso2@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent advancements in generative artificial intelligence (AI) have opened new avenues in educational methodologies, particularly in medical education. This study seeks to assess whether generative AI might be useful in addressing the depletion of assessment question banks, a challenge intensified during the Covid-era due to the prevalence of open-book examinations, and to augment the pool of formative assessment opportunities available to students. While many recent publications have sought to ascertain whether AI can achieve a passing standard in existing examinations, this study investigates the potential for AI to generate the exam itself. This research utilized a commercially available AI large language model (LLM), OpenAI GPT-4, to generate 220 single best answer (SBA) questions, adhering to Medical Schools Council Assessment Alliance guidelines the and a selection of Learning Outcomes (LOs) of the Scottish Graduate-Entry Medicine (ScotGEM) program. All questions were assessed by an expert panel for accuracy and quality. A total of 50 AI-generated and 50 human-authored questions were used to create two 50-item formative SBA examinations for Year 1 and Year 2 ScotGEM students. Each exam, delivered via the Speedwell eSystem, comprised 25 AI-generated and 25 human-authored questions presented in random order. Students completed the online, closed-book exams on personal devices under exam conditions that reflected summative examinations. The performance of both AI-generated and human-authored questions was evaluated, focusing on facility and discrimination index as key metrics. The screening process revealed that 69% of AI-generated SBAs were fit for inclusion in the examinations with little or no modifications required. Modifications, when necessary, were predominantly due to reasons such as the inclusion of "all of the above" options, usage of American English spellings, and non-alphabetized answer choices. 31% of questions were rejected for inclusion in the examinations, due to factual inaccuracies and non-alignment with students' learning. When included in an examination, post hoc statistical analysis indicated no significant difference in performance between the AI- and human- authored questions in terms of facility and discrimination index. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionThe outcomes of this study suggest that AI LLMs can generate SBA questions that are in line with best-practice guidelines and specific LOs. However, a robust quality assurance process is necessary to ensure that erroneous questions are identified and rejected. The insights gained from this research provide a foundation for further investigation into refining AI prompts, aiming for a more reliable generation of curriculum-aligned questions. LLMs show significant potential in supplementing traditional methods of question generation in medical education. This approach offers a viable solution to rapidly replenish and diversify assessment resources in medical curricula, marking a step forward in the intersection of AI and education.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEducational MeasurementCOVID-19HumansReproducibility of ResultsSARS-CoV-2Artificial IntelligenceAssessmentChatGPTGenerative AILLM

Identifiers

PMID40001164
PMCPMC11854382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.