ArticleBMC medical education2026
Artificial intelligence in medical ethics education: a descriptive study of eight models in multiple choice question generation.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntegrating artificial intelligence (AI) into medical education poses barriers and opportunities for medical educators. One of those opportunities is content creation for medical ethics assessment. Assessing the performance of AI in generating multiple choice questions (MCQs) in ethics that aligns with United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) is important. The present study evaluates the performance of eight AI models-GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-3.5 Turbo 0125, o1 Mini, o1 Preview, GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude 3 Opus, and Gemini-in regard to the relevance, clarity, and accuracy of generated ethics-based MCQs.
methodsEach of the eight models was tasked with generating two sets of question, answer, and explanation for each of 13 selected USMLE-aligned student learning outcomes related to medical ethics. Responses were rated by four independent experts in medical ethics on relevance, clarity, and accuracy. Performance metrics were assessed using mean, median, range, and total scores, with an overall percentage score computed for each model. Qualitative responses noting strengths and weaknesses were collected.
resultsClaude 3.5 Sonnet had the highest overall performance (86.28%), accuracy (85.57%), and clarity (91.73%). o1 Mini followed closely with an overall score of 85.19%, while GPT-4 had the highest rating for relevance (88.65%) and a total score of 84.87%. GPT-4 Turbo and o1 Preview had the lowest overall score at 76.79%. Identified weaknesses included incorrect answer selection, best answer not available, and the question was not ethics-based.
conclusionThe findings indicate clear potential for medical educators tasked with designing medical ethics MCQs for teaching and assessment. However, expert oversight is needed to ensure proper utilization. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT: Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on request.
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.