Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42029015›Full record

ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2026

AI wrote the case…but students made it accurate: a new approach to case study assignments.

Nadine Lerret

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Nadine LerretRush University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-3189-9420

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Case-based learning is a proven pedagogical strategy in medical laboratory science (MLS) education, fostering critical thinking, data interpretation, and clinical reasoning skills. This article describes an innovative "artificial intelligence (AI)-first, student-corrected" assignment model that leverages generative artificial intelligence (AI) as a drafting tool while positioning students as expert validators of clinical information. Students use AI to generate initial case studies based on current course material, then critically appraise and correct inaccuracies in laboratory analytes, reference ranges, diagnostic pathways, and clinical reasoning. A structured rubric guides revision across four domains: patient background, laboratory data integration, evidence-based case questions, and diagnostic conclusions. Importantly, students also create paired videos to demonstrate comprehensive knowledge as well as patient-professional communication skills. Following implementation, MLS students who had completed both the traditional and AI-enhanced versions of the assignment were surveyed. Of the 17 students who responded, 15 (88%) preferred this AI-enhanced approach over traditional case writing, citing improved engagement, reduced writer's block, enhanced error detection skills, and increased confidence with emerging AI tool usage. By transforming students from passive case consumers into active builders of clinical understanding, this model strengthens essential MLS competencies, including critical appraisal, data verification, and AI literacy, all while preparing learners for a future where AI-assisted tools are embedded throughout laboratory medicine. This pedagogical innovation demonstrates how educators can harness AI's efficiency while preserving and amplifying the cognitive and professional benefits of case-based learning.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecase studymedical laboratory science education

Identifiers

PMID42029015
PMCPMC13520654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.