ArticleJMIR medical education2026
Developing and Validating a Coding Scheme for Clinical Reasoning in History Taking Using Generative AI-Based Virtual Patients: Systematic Text Condensation Approach.
Article in JMIR 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Effective history taking helps clinicians identify key symptoms and form accurate hypotheses. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI)-based virtual patients (VPs) are increasingly used to simulate and practice history taking. However, there is currently no straightforward approach to effectively identify students' clinical reasoning activities during these interactions, which limits the ability to provide instructional feedback. Objective: This study aims to develop and validate a coding scheme to identify medical students' history-taking behaviors during interactions with GenAI-based VPs. Methods: Second-year medical students (N=210) participated in 5 history-taking cases with GenAI-based VPs, yielding 1030 dialogues. Researchers applied the systematic text condensation method to these dialogue data from cases 1 to 4 to inductively develop a coding scheme and validate coding consistency. Subsequently, the dialogue data from case 5 were used to assess the correlation between the students' history-taking behaviors and their academic performance, including diagnostic accuracy, history-taking checklist scores, clinical knowledge test scores, and postencounter form scores. Results: A coding scheme comprising 12 behaviors across 3 dimensions-clinical reasoning behaviors, information gathering behaviors, and social interaction behaviors-was developed with high interrater reliability (κ≥0.85). The correlation analysis revealed that key clinical reasoning behaviors, such as summarizing and integrating and logical organization, showed significant positive correlations with multiple performance metrics, underscoring their importance in fostering clinical competence. In contrast, information gathering behaviors such as specifying symptoms and routine question were associated with clinical knowledge and thoroughness of history taking but were less predictive of diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions: This study developed a reliable, theory-informed coding scheme that can identify students' questioning behaviors during history taking with GenAI-based VPs. The scheme effectively captures higher-order cognitive strategies and provides valuable insights into the development of clinical reasoning in medical students. This approach offers a scalable and efficient way to integrate real-time feedback into future medical education, fostering personalized learning and advancing competency-based assessments in clinical 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.