ArticleMedical education2026
Reconfiguring tutor-peer roles to foster critical thinking in medical PBL assisted by tutor-managed chatGPT.
Article in Medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scaffolded AI-Supported Problem-Based Learning for Medical Interns: Exploratory Retrospectively Registered Randomized Controlled Evaluation With a Voluntary Feasibility Follow-Up.JMIR medical education · 2026Trial
- Methods for teaching postgraduate point-of-care ultrasonography: a systematic review.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Feasibility of point-of-care ultrasound training and remote quality assurance for community physicians in conflict-affected Syria.Journal of ultrasound · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCritical thinking skills (CTS) are essential in medical education. Problem-based learning (PBL) effectively develops CTS, with generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) offering enhancement potential.
objectivesThis study investigates how a tutor-managed ChatGPT-PBL model: (1) reconfigures tutor/peer roles and CTS compared to traditional PBL; (2) establishes predictive relationships between tutor/peer roles and CTS and (3) confirms optimal operational parameters for tutor-managed ChatGPT to enhance CTS.
methodsA quasi-experimental study assigned 170 medical students to either a ChatGPT-PBL or a traditional PBL group. Data from a 31-item survey assessing tutor and peer roles and CTS, along with learning logs and tutor observations for 36 participants, recorded AI engagement metrics (e.g., query frequency, multi-source validation, comparative questioning). The intervention used a pre-defined "3-2-60 Rule" (≥3 queries/session, ≥2 authoritative sources/claim, >60% comparative framing), derived from existing literature, to guide ChatGPT engagement. Interrelationships were examined.
resultsChatGPT-PBL improved CTS outcomes, enhancing tutor-guided constructive/self-directed/contextual/collaborative learning and peer-driven information processing/communication/critical analysis. Regression identified collaborative learning and information processing as CTS predictors in both approaches, but ChatGPT shifted their influence: collaborative learning's role decreased while information processing's increased. High adherence to the "3-2-60 Rule" correlated with CTS gains, with high-engagement groups (>3 queries, ≥2 sources, comparative framing) outperforming peers.
conclusionsTutor-managed ChatGPT reconfigures tutor/peer roles in PBL to enhance CTS development. Structured peer-ChatGPT-tutor interactions (following the 3-2-60 rule) contributed to enhancing CTS. Given ChatGPT's socioemotional limitations, future implementations should embed adversarial ChatGPT tasks and ethical transparency protocols.
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.