ArticleBMC medical education2025
Iteratively refined ChatGPT outperforms clinical mentors in generating high-quality interprofessional education clinical scenarios: a comparative study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- A primer on artificial intelligence for palliative care educators.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-based chatbots improve the efficiency of course orientation among medical students: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterprofessional education (IPE) is essential for promoting teamwork among healthcare professionals. However, its implementation is often hindered by the limited availability of interprofessional faculty and scheduling challenges in creating high-quality IPE scenarios. While AI tools like ChatGPT are increasingly being explored for this purpose, they have yet to demonstrate the ability to generate high-quality IPE scenarios, which remains a significant challenge. This study examines the effectiveness of GPT-4o, an advanced version of ChatGPT enhanced by novel methodologies, in overcoming these obstacles.
methodsThis comparative study assessed clinical scenarios generated by GPT-4o using two strategies-standard prompt (a single-step scenario generation without iterative feedback) and iterative refinement (a multi-step, feedback-driven process)-against those crafted by clinical mentors. The iterative refinement method, inspired by actual clinical scenario development, employs a cyclical process of evaluation and refinement, closely mimicking discussions among professionals. Scenarios were evaluated for time efficiency and quality using the Interprofessional Quality Score (IQS), defined as the mean score assigned by multidisciplinary evaluators across five interprofessional criteria: clinical authenticity, team collaboration, educational alignment, appropriate challenge, and student engagement.
resultsScenarios developed using the iterative refinement strategy were completed significantly faster than those by clinical mentors and achieved higher or equivalent IQS. Notably, these scenarios matched or exceeded the quality of those created by humans, particularly in areas such as appropriate challenge and student engagement. Conversely, scenarios generated via the standard prompt method exhibited lower accuracy and various other deficiencies. Blinded attribution assessments by students further demonstrated that scenarios developed through iterative refinement were often indistinguishable from those created by human mentors.
conclusionsEmploying GPT-4o with iterative refinement and role-playing strategies produces clinical scenarios that, in some areas, exceed those developed by clinical mentors. This approach reduces the need for extensive faculty involvement, highlighting AI's potential to closely align with established educational frameworks and substantially enhance IPE, particularly in resource-constrained settings.
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.