ArticleBMC medical education2025
Student perceptions of GenAI as a virtual tutor to support collaborative research training for health professionals.
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.
- AI Integration in Undergraduate Medical Education: Qualitative Study of Faculty Perspectives in the United Arab Emirates.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Effectiveness and students' perception of tutor-guided AI navigation in undergraduate medical education in Sri Lanka: a quasi-experimental study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Exploring Feature Priorities and User Needs in Developing Virtual Study Assistants.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Integrating Generative AI into public health education: a mixed methods evaluation of student experiences.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
backgroundResearch and evaluation skills are essential in healthcare education. Instructors frequently employ collaborative learning models to teach these competencies; however, delivering timely and personalized feedback to multiple groups can be a significant challenge. This study aimed to investigate the potential of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) as a tool for providing feedback on students' research ideas.
methodsWe employed GenAI tools to provide personalised formative feedback during a small-group activity focused on helping students formulate research plans. The activity was implemented within two university courses designed for working health professionals. Students were grouped into groups of 5-7 students and provided clear instructions for how to prompt the GenAI for feedback on their research ideas. Participants completed an evaluation survey at the end of the activity that assessed frequency of use, perceived value, utility, and overall satisfaction.
resultsHalf of the participants (n = 64, 85.3% response rate) had never used GenAI before (n = 32). Participants agreed or strongly agreed that the feedback provided by the GenAI was valuable (n = 54, 85%), helped them improve their plan (n = 50, 78%), and increased their interest in GenAI (n = 55, 86%). Participant comments described the feedback as favourable, specified an interest in adapting their plan, and rarely indicated a lack of trust or disagreement with the feedback provided.
conclusionsGenAI offers an efficient and satisfactory approach to providing feedback to students for their research ideas. As a supportive tool, GenAI may foster student learning while enabling educators to rethink how and what they focus their time on, with an eye toward helping students understand more nuanced and complex research concepts. This study highlights the potential of GenAI as a virtual tutor, and the need for additional research to explore its benefits and challenges.
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.