ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2026
Artificial intelligence in radiology examinations: a psychometric comparison of question generation methods.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating AI-powered instruction on Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) teaching outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Potential and Limitations of Large Language Models for Medical Literature Analysis: A Preliminary Investigation.Cureus · 2025Article
- Competency-based, multicomponent teaching reform in medical imaging technology: a quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the usability of artificial intelligence (AI)-based question generation methods-Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT)-4o (a non-template-based large language model) and a template-based automatic item generation (AIG) method-in the context of radiology education. The primary objective was to compare the psychometric properties, perceived quality, and educational applicability of generated multiple-choice questions (MCQs) with those written by a faculty member.
methodsFifth-year medical students who participated in the radiology clerkship at Eskişehir Osmangazi University were invited to take a voluntary 15-question examination covering musculoskeletal and rheumatologic imaging. The examination included five MCQs from each of three sources: a radiologist educator, ChatGPT-4o, and the template-based AIG method. Student responses were evaluated in terms of difficulty and discrimination indices. Following the examination, students rated each question using a Likert scale based on clarity, difficulty, plausibility of distractors, and alignment with learning goals. Correlations between students' examination performance and their theoretical/practical radiology grades were analyzed using Pearson's correlation method.
resultsA total of 115 students participated. Faculty-written questions had the highest mean correct response rate (2.91 ± 1.34), followed by template-based AIG (2.32 ± 1.66) and ChatGPT-4o (2.3 ± 1.14) questions (
conclusionBoth the ChatGPT-4o and template-based AIG methods produced MCQs with acceptable psychometric properties. While faculty-written questions were most effective overall, AI-generated questions- especially those from the template-based AIG method-showed strong potential for use in radiology education. However, the small number of items per method and the single-institution context limit the robustness and generalizability of the findings. These results should be regarded as exploratory, and further validation in larger, multicenter studies is required. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: AI-based question generation may potentially support educators by enhancing efficiency and consistency in assessment item creation. These methods may complement traditional approaches to help scale up high-quality MCQ development in medical education, particularly in resource-limited settings; however, they should be applied with caution and expert oversight until further evidence is available, especially given the preliminary nature of the current findings.
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.