ArticleThe clinical teacher2025
Evaluating Artificial Intelligence and Traditional Learning Tools for Chest X-Ray Interpretation: A Descriptive Study.
Article in The clinical teacher, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correction to "Evaluating Artificial Intelligence and Traditional Learning Tools for Chest X-Ray Interpretation: A Descriptive Study".The clinical teacher · 2025Article
- Evaluating Artificial Intelligence and Traditional Learning Tools for Chest X-Ray Interpretation: A Descriptive Study.The clinical teacher · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChest X-ray (CXR) interpretation is a fundamental yet challenging skill for medical students to master. Traditional resources like Radiopaedia offer extensive content, while newer artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as Chester, provide pattern recognition and real-time feedback. This study aims to evaluate Radiopaedia and Chester's effectiveness as educational tools and to explore student perspectives on AI. APPROACH: A teaching session on CXR interpretation fundamentals was delivered to establish a standardised baseline of knowledge among participants, followed by a live tutorial introducing students to the functionality of both Chester AI and Radiopaedia. Students engaged with both tools to answer a 25-item workbook assessing complex CXR pathologies. CXRs were deliberately selected for their complexity to examine student engagement with online learning tools amid diagnostic uncertainty, encouraging applied clinical reasoning. EVALUATION: Preclinical medical students were recruited and randomly assigned to the Chester AI (n = 5) or Radiopaedia group (n = 5). During the workbook task, participants were instructed to engage with the workbook using Radiopaedia and Chester AI. Post-session, participants took part in focus groups to share their experiences. Thematic analysis highlighted Chester's efficiency and potential as a revision tool but noted limitations with complex CXR pathologies. Radiopaedia was valued for its comprehensiveness but was less efficient for the workbook task due to its vast array of content. IMPLICATIONS: AI tools such as Chester show promise as complementary resources alongside traditional learning materials. Combining Chester's efficiency and real-time feedback with Radiopaedia's in-depth content may optimise learning and improve CXR interpretation skills.
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.