ArticleBMC medical education2026
Development and validation of a competency-based evaluation framework for clinical medical trainees in the era of artificial intelligence: a mixed-methods study in China.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Challenges of Effective Clinical Teaching Organization at Public Medical Universities in Poland: A Delphi Method Study.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical practice is reshaping the competency requirements for medical trainees. Yet, validated evaluation instruments aligned with outcome-based education (OBE) frameworks remain scarce.
methodsWe conducted a sequential mixed methods study to develop and preliminarily evaluate an OBE-based competency assessment matrix for clinical medical trainees in China. The framework was derived from national and international competency standards and refined through a three-round Delphi process with 16 medical education experts. Empirical evaluation involved 276 respondents including residents, postgraduate students, and clinical educators who completed the finalized 72-item instrument via a digital assessment platform. Reliability and exploratory structural characteristics were examined using Cronbach’s α, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and inter-item correlation matrices. Subgroup differences were examined descriptively and visualized with radar plots.
resultsThe Delphi panel reached consensus on 72 items across three domains—Importance, Feasibility, and Clarity—with progressive convergence (Kendall’s W ranging from 0.65 in Round 1 to 0.74 in Round 3). The resulting scale showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.928) and strong sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.884). Bartlett’s test of sphericity was highly significant (χ2 = 421.35, df = 28, p < 0.001), confirming the suitability of the data for structural exploration. EFA of aggregated domain scores yielded a three-component pattern that cumulatively explained 74.5% of the variance. The resulting loading profile suggested meaningful contributions of Importance, Feasibility, and Clarity, offering exploratory support for the proposed domain-level structure. Radar plots revealed systematic but role-dependent differences: faculty emphasized Importance, residents prioritized Feasibility, and postgraduates rated Clarity slightly higher.
conclusionThis study provides a context-sensitive evaluation matrix with encouraging initial psychometric evidence, tailored to the evolving demands of AI-informed clinical education. The framework offers a promising platform for competency assessment and curriculum development in Chinese teaching hospitals and may serve as a reference model for other AI-integrating medical education systems, while highlighting the need for confirmatory factor analysis in independent samples to more definitively establish its dimensional structure.
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.