ArticleBMC medical education2025
Applying ChatGPT to plan and create a realistic collection of virtual patients for clinical reasoning training.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilizing generative artificial intelligence to create simulated patient for history taking in gynecology.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Bias, representation, and clinical fidelity in AI-generated images for medical education: a systematic literature review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Using virtual reality to support the transition from preclinical to clinical training in paediatric dentistry.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education clinical skills curricula: a scoping review of implementations since 2022.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Comparing Artificial intelligence to physicians' competences in the domain of clinical reasoning: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVirtual patients (VPs) are useful tools in training of medical students’ clinical reasoning abilities. However, creating high-quality and peer-reviewed VPs is time-consuming and resource-intensive. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether generative artificial intelligence (AI) could facilitate the planning and creation of a diverse collection of VPs suitable for training medical students in clinical reasoning.
methodsWe used ChatGPT to generate a blueprint for 200 diverse VPs that adequately represent the population in Europe. We selected five VPs from the blueprint to be created by humans and ChatGPT. We assessed the generated blueprint for representativeness and internal consistency, and we reviewed the VPs in a multi-step, partly blinded process for didactical quality and content accuracy. Finally, we received 44 VP evaluations from medical students.
resultsThe generated blueprint did not meet our expectations in terms of quality or representativeness and showed repetitive patterns and an unusually high number of atypical VP outlines. The ChatGPT- and human-generated VPs were comparable in terms of didactic quality and medical accuracy. Neither contained any medically incorrect information and reviewers and students could not discern significant differences. However, the five human-created VPs demonstrated a greater variety in storytelling, differential diagnosis, and patient-doctor interaction. The ChatGPT-generated VPs also included AI-generated patient images; however, we could not generate realistic clinical images.
conclusionsWhile we do not consider ChatGPT in its current version capable of generating a realistic blueprint for a VP collection, we believe that the process of prompting, combined with iterative discussions and refinements after each step, is promising and warrants further exploration. Similarly, although ChatGPT-generated VPs can serve as a good starting point, the variety of VP scenarios in a large collection may be limited without interactions between authors and reviewers to further refine it.
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.