Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41420084›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2025

Simulated patient systems powered by large language model-based AI agents offer potential for transforming medical education.

Huizi Yu, Jiayan Zhou, Lingyao Li, Shan Chen, Jack Gallifant, Anye Shi, Jie Sun, Xiang Li, Jingxian He, Wenyue Hua and 16 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A comprehensive survey of AI agents in healthcare.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2026
    Review
  10. [Development and psychometric validation of the User Experience Scale for Artificial Intelligence QuestionZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

Huizi YuThe Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Jiayan ZhouStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5974-087X
Lingyao LiThe Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Shan ChenArtificial Intelligence in Medicine Program, Mass General Brigham, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7999-7410
Jack GallifantArtificial Intelligence in Medicine Program, Mass General Brigham, Boston, MA, USA.
Anye ShiCornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Jie SunPeking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiang LiSchool of Control Sciences and Engineering, Shandong University, Ji'nan, Shandong, China.
Jingxian HeQilu Hospital of Shandong University, Ji'nan, Shandong, China.
Wenyue HuaRutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Mingyu JinRutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Guang ChenBroad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Yang ZhouChinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Zhao LiChinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Trisha GupteStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Ming-Li ChenStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0276-2626
Zahra AziziStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Qi DouThe Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Bryan P YanThe Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Yanqiu XingQilu Hospital of Shandong University, Ji'nan, Shandong, China.
Yongfeng ZhangRutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Themistocles L AssimesStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2349-0009
Danielle S BittermanArtificial Intelligence in Medicine Program, Mass General Brigham, Boston, MA, USA.
Xin MaSchool of Control Sciences and Engineering, Shandong University, Ji'nan, Shandong, China. maxin@sdu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4402-1957
Lin LuPeking University Sixth Hospital, Beijing, China. linlu@bjmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0742-9072
Lizhou FanThe Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, China. leofan@cuhk.edu.hk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7962-9113

Funding

Informatics strategies to improve immune-related adverse event detection in cancer patientsR01CA294033 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Hugo Aerts · 2024 to 2026
$1.3M
National Natural Science Foundation of China (National Science Foundation of China) 62573271NCI NIH HHS R01 CA294033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSimulated patient systems are vital in medical education and research, providing safe, integrative training environments and supporting clinical decision-making. Progressive Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, such as Large Language Models (LLM), could advance simulated patient systems by replicating medical conditions and patient-doctor interactions with high fidelity and low cost. However, effectiveness and trustworthiness remain challenging.

methodsWe developed AIPatient, a simulated patient system powered by LLM-based AI agents. The system incorporates the Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) framework, powered by six task-specific LLM-based AI agents for complex reasoning. For simulation reality, the system is also powered by the AIPatient KG (Knowledge Graph), built with de-identified real patient data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-III database.

resultsHere we show that the system's accuracy in Electronic Health Record (EHR)-based medical Question Answering (QA), readability, robustness, and stability. Specifically, the system achieves a QA accuracy of 94.15% when all six agents, surpassing benchmarks with partial or no agent integration. Its knowledgebase demonstrates high validity (F1 score=0.89). Readability scores show median Flesch Reading Ease at 68.77 and median Flesch Kincaid Grade at 6.4, indicating accessibility to all medical professionals. Robustness and stability are confirmed with non-significant variance (ANOVA F-value = 0.6126, p > 0.1; F-value = 0.782, p > 0.1). A user study with medical students shows that AIPatient delivers high fidelity, usability, and educational value, matching or exceeding human-simulated patients in history-taking.

conclusionsLarge language model-based simulated patient systems provide accurate, readable, and reliable medical encounters and demonstrates potential to transform medical education.

Identifiers

PMID41420084
PMCPMC12808140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.