ArticleBMC medical education2025
Quality assurance and validity of AI-generated single best answer questions.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Generating Image-Based Multiple-Choice Questions with Multimodal Large Language Models: Expert and Psychometric Evaluation.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Large language models in Chinese anesthesiology residency examinations: a comparative analysis of performance, reliability and clinical reasoning.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Evaluating the ability of AI models to generate level-specific medical MCQs with variable difficulty.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- AI-Driven Objective Structured Clinical Examination Generation in Digital Health Education: Comparative Analysis of Three GPT-4o Configurations.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- When Assessment Theory Meets Generative AI: Reimagining SBA Design in Medical Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- What Are the Opportunities and Challenges of Using AI in Medical Education in Vietnam?JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Anatomy exam model for the circulatory and respiratory systems using GPT-4: a medical school study.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.