ArticleBMC medical education2025
Artificial intelligence-based chatbots improve the efficiency of course orientation among medical students: a cross-sectional study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Generative artificial intelligence in medical education: from knowledge assessment to clinical reasoning and professional competence.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT offer new ways to improve academic and administrative workflows in medical education, particularly for students studying in a language that is not their native tongue. We set out to examine whether a custom-trained chatbot could better support course orientation compared to traditional text-based resources for an ESL student population.
methodsSeventy-five first-year international medical students at the University of Szeged, Hungary participated during the first session of an introductory medical informatics course to use either a custom-trained ChatGPT-based chatbot (AI group, n = 35) or the university's standard e-learning platform (Traditional group, n = 40) to locate key course information. A six-item test based on the syllabus assessed information retrieval within a 10-min window. Test scores, time per question, and question revisits were compared using independent t-tests and two-way ANOVA.
resultsNo differences were found in previous use of AI-based tools between the two groups (Traditional: 90.0% vs AI group: 91.4%, P = 1). The AI group scored significantly higher (5.0 [4.8 - 6.0], median[IQR]) than the Traditional group (3.5 [2.8 - 4.3], P < 0.001). The majority of AI users (24/35) achieved 5 or more correct answers, compared to just 6/40 in the Traditional group. The lowest scores (0 points) were found exclusively in the Traditional group. No significant difference was observed in total test completion time (Traditional: 380.3 ± 158.6; AI: 433.7 ± 121.4; P = 0.10), time spent per question (P = 0.90), or question revisits (P = 0.99). Notably, the AI group outperformed on specific questions related to course logistics, such as attendance (62.9% vs 17.5% correct) and grading criteria (82.9% vs 55.0% correct) (both P < 0.001).
conclusionsArtificial intelligence-assisted information retrieval significantly improved students' ability to locate and understand key course content. Despite comparable time-on-task and navigation behaviours between groups, students using the ChatGPT-based chatbot achieved markedly higher test scores, likely due to the simplified and focused responses it provided. The absence of zero scores in the AI group and enhanced performance on logistical questions suggest that conversational interfaces may improve comprehension and retention of procedural information. These results highlight the potential of LLM-based tools to support more efficient onboarding in medical education, with a potential for broader applications across educational settings.
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.