ArticleJournal of medical systems2026
Generative Artificial Intelligence for Medical Image Creation in Health Professions Education: a Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multimodal AI Framework for Medical Education: Integrating Adaptive Image Retrieval, Fast Synthesis, and LLM-Based Clinical Auditing.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Review
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
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) can create synthetic medical images, enabling new educational applications, but current tools have not been systematically validated for educational fidelity, safety, or equity. This scoping review maps how generative AI systems are used for medical image creation in health - professions education, summarizes reported benefits and risks, and identifies evidence gaps. Searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and grey literature (January 2010 to May 2025) identified 19 eligible studies. Diffusion models (e.g., Stable Diffusion, DALL - E, Midjourney) dominated recent work, with applications concentrated in dermatology, ophthalmology, and anatomy; radiology and pathology were rarely represented. Several studies reported short - term gains in learner performance or engagement, including small controlled trials, but study designs, outcome measures, and follow - up durations varied widely. Across the literature, important harms and failure modes were common: medically inaccurate or anatomically implausible outputs (including hallucinated structures), very low task accuracy in some domains (e.g., synthetic ECG generation reported 32. 7% accuracy), inconsistent evaluation metrics, and limited external validation. Multiple studies also documented demographic bias and stereotyping in generated images, indicating that uncritical use may worsen rather than solve diversity and representation problems. Overall, generative AI for image creation should be treated as an experimental adjunct requiring rigorous human - in - the - loop review, bias auditing, and alignment with educational theory. Future research should adopt standardized frameworks for synthetic - image evaluation (e.g., fidelity and cognitive load considerations), include study quality assessment, and test long - term learning transfer and clinical impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41663620What 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.