ArticleBMC medical education2026
Enhancing dental clinical education through AI: insights into post-clinical summaries.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being introduced into clinical education, including dentistry, as a supplement to traditional instructor-led reflection and feedback. Post-clinical summaries-structured end-of-day reviews of patient cases, decision-making, safety concerns, and areas for improvement-are a critical part of this training process.
objectiveThis study explored how trainees perceive the usefulness of AI tools such as ChatGPT and DEEP SEEK in supporting post-clinical summaries, with respect to knowledge consolidation, diagnostic reasoning, teacher-student communication, and professionalism.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional perception survey of 54 participants (undergraduate interns through resident physicians) who had experience with post-clinical summaries. The structured questionnaire used Likert-type items to assess perceived value of AI in four domains. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses.
resultsMost respondents reported that AI tools help them review theoretical knowledge after clinical work (85.19% agreed/strongly agreed) and clarify diagnostic reasoning (74.08%). Many perceived AI as improving the depth and personalization of teacher-student communication (74.07%) and enhancing confidence in asking questions (72.22%). By contrast, responses regarding non-technical competencies-such as ethical awareness, responsibility, and professional judgment-were more mixed, with many respondents selecting neutral options. Overall, 77.78% of respondents agreed that AI is a valuable resource for improving post-clinical summary activities, and 68.52% would recommend integrating AI into clinical education.
conclusionsParticipants generally perceived AI as a helpful adjunct for reinforcing clinical knowledge, supporting diagnostic reasoning, and facilitating communication. Perceived benefits for professionalism, ethics, and responsibility were less clear. Because this study used self-reported perceptions from a single setting, without qualitative data or inferential statistics, the findings should be interpreted as exploratory. Future work should include qualitative interviews, objective performance measures, and longitudinal follow-up to determine whether AI-supported post-clinical summaries translate into measurable educational outcomes.
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.