ArticleArchives of disease in childhood2026
AI-simulated clinical consultations: Assessing the potential of ChatGPT to support medical training.
Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 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
backgroundSimulated medical scenarios are useful for evaluating and developing clinical competencies but scheduling them is expensive and time-consuming. Large language models show promise in role-playing tasks. We investigated the fidelity with which ChatGPT can mimic patients, clinicians and examiners in educational settings.
objectiveTo determine the realism with which ChatGPT can portray patient, doctor and examiner roles, and the utility of these agents in clinical education.
methodWe selected four paediatric scenarios from mock objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) and set up separate patient, doctor and examiner ChatGPT agents for each. The patient and doctor agents conversed with each other in written format. The examiner agent marked the doctor agent based on this conversation. Patients and clinicians familiar with the OSCE assessed the dialogues.
resultsThe patient agent was judged to be true to character most of the time and good at expressing emotion. The doctor agent was reported to be an effective communicator but occasionally used jargon. Both agents tended to produce repetitive responses which undermined realism. The examiner agent had good correlation with human clinicians. There was moderate support for using the simulated interactions for educational purposes.
conclusionAlthough the realism of the agents can be improved, ChatGPT can generate plausible proxies of participants in medical scenarios and could be useful for complementing standardised patient-based training.
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.