ArticleScientific reports2026
Deep learning driven personalized paths for TCM graduate education.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) graduate education struggles to balance classical knowledge and modern medical integration. This study developed and validated a deep learning-based personalized learning path system. Due to the sequential nature of graduate program enrollment, a true randomized controlled trial was not feasible. We therefore conducted a rigorously controlled quasi-experimental non-randomized controlled trial involving 120 TCM graduate students (2019–2025, Anhui Medical University). Participants were assigned to the AI-personalized group (n = 60) or traditional learning group (n = 60) via stratified alternating allocation—a standard quasi-randomization method recommended by the Cochrane Handbook—stratified by prior education background and baseline TCM knowledge score to ensure baseline balance. The study followed the CONSORT 2010 Extension for Non-Randomized Trials (TREND statement) for standardized reporting. The system achieved 87.3% (95% CI:84.2–90.1) accuracy in predicting optimal learning paths. Students in the AI-personalized group showed significant improvements across all three domains: the proportion of students achieving “good” proficiency increased from an initial 26%–35% (TCM knowledge: 35.2%, clinical skills: 26.7%, research capability: 28.3%) to 46%–68% (TCM knowledge: 68.3%, clinical skills: 58.3%, research capability: 46.7%) (Cohen’s d = 0.71–0.91; all p < 0.001). Deep learning personalization enhances TCM education outcomes, suggesting a potentially scalable framework for integrative medicine programs.
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.