ArticleAcademic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry2026
Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Generation of Case Scenarios and Multiple-Choice Questions in Psychiatry: A Pilot Study.
Article in Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry, 2026. 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.
- Pedagogical Efficacy of LLM-Generated Synthetic Data Versus Real-World Clinical Records: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Trial
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
objectiveThis study examined the potential of ChatGPT-4, a large language model (LLM), to generate case-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in undergraduate psychiatry education and assessed the quality and clinical relevance of the outputs through expert evaluation.
methodsTwelve psychiatric diagnoses commonly encountered in clinical practice were selected. For each diagnosis, a clinical vignette and five MCQs addressing diagnosis, treatment, differential diagnosis, prognosis, and complications were generated using ChatGPT-4, based on structured prompts. The resulting 12 vignettes and 60 questions were divided into six forms. Each form was evaluated by two psychiatrists via an online survey. Evaluators responded to the questions, reviewed the suggested correct answers, and rated the quality and relevance of the items and vignettes using a standardized form. Evaluators also indicated whether each question assessed clinical reasoning or rote knowledge.
resultsTwelve psychiatrists completed evaluations. A majority of the items (71%) were rated as having an appropriate level of difficulty, and 72% of distractors were deemed plausible. However, 28% of questions were reported to contain more than one seemingly correct answer. Clinical vignettes were judged to be representative and diagnostically relevant in 23 out of 24 evaluations. On average, 81.5% of the ChatGPT-selected correct answers were chosen by evaluators. Most reviewers (21/24) stated that the questions assessed clinical reasoning.
conclusionsChatGPT-4 can generate clinically relevant vignettes and MCQs that may support case-based learning in psychiatry education. While promising, expert oversight remains essential, especially in generating questions targeting deeper clinical judgment and minimizing ambiguity in answer options.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41413359What 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.