ArticleBMC medical education2025
Enhancing medical students' diagnostic accuracy of infectious keratitis with AI-generated images.
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.
- Bias, representation, and clinical fidelity in AI-generated images for medical education: a systematic literature review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Learning ophthalmic anatomy with AI-generated visual resource: the moderating role of educational background.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in microbial keratitis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Advances in the application of artificial intelligence in ophthalmic education and clinical training.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDeveloping students' ability to accurately diagnose various types of keratitis is challenging. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of teaching methods-real cases, artificial intelligence (AI)-generated images, and real medical images-on improving medical students' diagnostic accuracy of bacterial, fungal, and herpetic keratitis.
methods97 consecutive fourth-year medical students who had completed basic ophthalmology educational courses were included. The students were divided into three groups: 30 students in the group (G1) using the real cases for teaching, 37 students in the group (G2) using AI-generated images for teaching, and 30 students in the group (G3) using real medical images for teaching. The G1 group had a 1-hour study session using five real cases of each type of infectious keratitis. The G2 group and the G3 group each experienced a 1-hour image reading sessions using 50 AI-generated or real medical images of each type of infectious keratitis. Diagnostic accuracy for three types of infectious keratitis was assessed via a 30-question test using real patient images, compared before and after teaching interventions.
resultsAll teaching methods significantly improved mean overall diagnostic accuracy. The mean accuracy improved from 42.03 to 67.47% in the G1 group, from 42.68 to 71.27% in the G2 group, and from 46.50 to 74.23% in the G3 group, respectively. The mean accuracy improvement was highest in the G2 group (28.43%). There were no statistically significant differences in mean accuracy or accuracy improvement among the 3 groups.
conclusionsAI-generated images significantly enhance the diagnostic accuracy for infectious keratitis in medical students, performing comparably to traditional case-based teaching and real patient images. This method may standardize and improve clinical ophthalmology training, particularly for conditions with limited educational resources.
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.