ArticleJMIR research protocols2025
Evaluating AI-Generated Podcasts Versus Traditional Reading for Learning From Medical Articles: Protocol for a Mixed-Design Study Among Resident Physicians.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 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.
- A primer on artificial intelligence for palliative care educators.Palliative care and social practice · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPodcasts have emerged as a popular medium in medical education over the past decade. Audio learning allows flexibility and may help residents engage with content in new ways. Reading scientific literature is a core skill for residents, yet many residents struggle to comprehend complex research articles. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled the automatic generation of podcast-style summaries of documents. It remains unclear whether listening to AI-generated podcast summaries can match the educational value of reading the full text of medical papers, and whether this depends on the complexity of the article.
objectiveThis study aims to compare comprehension of medical research papers when learning via an AI-generated audio podcast versus traditional reading. We will examine whether article complexity (narrative vs technical) moderates any difference. We hypothesize an interaction: for a highly complex article, residents who read the full text should achieve a better understanding than those who listen to a summary, whereas for an easier article, the difference between modalities should be smaller.
methodsWe designed a 2×2 mixed factorial study with 60 resident physicians preparing for the board certification in internal medicine or cardiology. All participants will engage with 2 peer-reviewed cardiology articles differing in complexity: a narrative case report on eosinophilic myocarditis and a technical research article on quantifying the vena contracta area using 3-dimensional echocardiography. Each participant will read 1 article and listen to an AI-generated podcast summary of the other, with the order and assignment counterbalanced to control for order effects. The podcasts are created using Google NotebookLM's experimental audio overview feature. Participants will complete a multiple-choice knowledge test for each article. The primary outcomes are comprehension scores for each modality. The secondary outcomes include intrinsic motivation, perceived learning gains, and cognitive load for each condition. Data will be analyzed using a mixed ANOVA to test the main effects of modality and article complexity, as well as their interaction.
resultsData collection is expected to be completed by early 2026. We will report the trial results according to the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines, and any deviations from this protocol will be documented and justified. No results are available at the time of publication of this protocol.
conclusionsThis randomized trial will offer evidence on the effectiveness of AI-generated podcast summaries as a learning tool for medical literature. If listening to an AI-generated podcast yields comprehension comparable to or superior to reading the full article, it could validate an innovative, time-saving approach for busy medical trainees. Conversely, if significant deficits are observed in the podcast group (especially for complex content), the findings will highlight the limitations of AI summaries and the continued importance of traditional reading for thorough understanding. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/78505.
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.