ArticleJMIR medical education2026
AI-Driven Objective Structured Clinical Examination Generation in Digital Health Education: Comparative Analysis of Three GPT-4o Configurations.
Article in JMIR 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.
- Article
- AI-enabled language technologies for language-mediated learning and clinical communication in international undergraduate dental education: a scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Large language model-generated versus teacher-written objective structured clinical examination stations for medical students: a blinded comparative pilot study.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObjective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are used as an evaluation method in medical education, but require significant pedagogical expertise and investment, especially in emerging fields like digital health. Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT (OpenAI), have shown potential in automating educational content generation. However, OSCE generation using LLMs remains underexplored.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate 3 GPT-4o configurations for generating OSCE stations in digital health: (1) standard GPT with a simple prompt and OSCE guidelines; (2) personalized GPT with a simple prompt, OSCE guidelines, and a reference book in digital health; and (3) simulated-agents GPT with a structured prompt simulating specialized OSCE agents and the digital health reference book.
methodsOverall, 24 OSCE stations were generated across 8 digital health topics with each GPT-4o configuration. Format compliance was evaluated by one expert, while educational content was assessed independently by 2 digital health experts, blind to GPT-4o configurations, using a comprehensive assessment grid. Statistical analyses were performed using Kruskal-Wallis tests.
resultsSimulated-agents GPT performed best in format compliance and most content quality criteria, including accuracy (mean 4.47/5, SD 0.28; P=.01) and clarity (mean 4.46/5, SD 0.52; P=.004). It also had 88% (14/16) for usability without major revisions and first-place preference ranking, outperforming the other configurations. Personalized GPT showed the lowest format compliance, while standard GPT scored lowest for clarity and educational value.
conclusionsStructured prompting strategies, particularly agents' simulation, enhance the reliability and usability of LLM-generated OSCE content. These results support the use of artificial intelligence in medical education, while confirming the need for expert validation.
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.