ArticleMedical education online2025
Large language models for generating key-feature questions in medical education.
Article in Medical education online, 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.
- Pedagogical Efficacy of LLM-Generated Synthetic Data Versus Real-World Clinical Records: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Trial
- Article
- Psychometric properties and detectability of GPT-4o-generated multiple-choice questions compared with human-authored items across imaging specialties.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- AI-generated videos in medical science popularization and education: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- From "teaching by word and deed" to "intelligent mentorship": ethical reconsiderations of AI-enabled medical education - lessons from China.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we conducted a descriptive study to evaluate the quality of KFQs generated by OpenAI's o3 model. We developed a reusable generic prompt for KFQ generation, designed in alignment with the Medical Council of Canada's KFQ development guidelines. We also created an evaluation metric to systematically assess the quality of the KFQs based on the KFQ development guideline. Twenty unique cardiology-focused KFQs were created using recent European Society of Cardiology guidelines as reference. Each KFQ was independently assessed by two cardiology experts using the quality checklist, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize checklist compliance and final acceptability ratings. Of the 20 KFQs, 3 (15%) were rated 'Accept as is' and 17 (85%) 'Accept with minor revisions'; none required major revisions or were rejected. The overall compliance rate across checklist criteria was 93.7%, with perfect scores in domains such as key feature definition, scenario plausibility, and alignment between questions and scenarios. Lower performance was observed for inclusion of genuinely harmful 'killer' responses (50%), plausibility of distractors (77.8%), and active language use in phrasing the question (80%). The findings showed that an LLM, guided by a structured prompt, can generate KFQs that closely adhere to established quality standards, with most requiring only minor refinements. While expert review remains essential to ensure clinical accuracy and patient safety, AI-assisted workflows have strong potential to streamline KFQ development and enhance the scalability of CDM assessment in medical education.
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.