ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2026
Nurse Practitioner Students' Perceptions of an Artificial Intelligence Differential Diagnosis Tool: A Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 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
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study is to assess nurse practitioner students' perceptions and engagement with Isabel's artificial intelligence (AI) based differential diagnosis tool to support their decision-making skills during their theoretical and clinical placement training.
designThis pilot study used a cross-sectional design.
methodsTwenty-six nurse practitioner students provided feedback on their use of an AI differential diagnosis tool in both academic and clinical contexts. This survey used the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire to assess the engagement levels and usability of the AI tool. Additional questions were included to evaluate the usage patterns, adequacy in training and confidence in diagnosis.
resultsThere were mixed engagement levels: 44.4% (n = 8/18) used Isabel in two subjects-typically one or both clinical placement units-and 27.8% (n = 5/18) in one subject; students most often used the tool to confirm differential diagnoses. Usability was rated positively with the disease ranking, red flag diagnosis and link to national guideline features demonstrating the highest student usage. While most students found the tool beneficial to use during clinical placement and completing university assignments, some reported challenges due to insufficient training, impacting confidence in clinical application.
conclusionIsabel has potential as a valuable educational tool in Nurse Practitioner programs, but successful implementation depends on adequate training and support. The findings highlight the importance of comprehensive training and support to maximise AI tool utilisation, with direct implications for programme curricula, clinical education strategies and potential improvements in diagnostic reasoning skills for future nurse practitioners. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: This study provides an example of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) guided clinical decision-making training in nurse practitioner (NP) education. The findings can be used by educational institutions to trial similar AI-integrated learning approaches, enhancing diagnostic competence and potentially improving patient care outcomes. REPORTING
methodThe Study adhered to the STROBE checklist for reporting. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution was made to this study.
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.