ArticleBMC medical education2026
AI as a differentiated cognitive partner in medical education: a comparative study of popular science versus research-based curriculum extensions in histology and embryology.
Article in BMC medical 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the efficacy of Popular Science (PS) and Research-Based (RS) curriculum extensions in a Histology and Embryology course, and explored how artificial intelligence (AI) tools can be designed as differentiated cognitive partners to support distinct pedagogical goals.
methodsTwo parallel first-year clinical medicine classes (N = 118) were non-randomly assigned to PS (n = 60) and RS (n = 58) arms. The PS group completed narrative, clinically connected tasks supported by the Intelligent Quiz Platform (IQP). The RS group undertook inquiry-driven literature analysis supported by the Literature Analysis Assistant (LAA). Outcomes included examination scores, validated questionnaire ratings, AI usage logs, and semi-structured interview themes.
resultsThe RS group was associated with higher comprehensive application (16.8 ± 2.6 vs. 14.2 ± 2.9, p < 0.01) and innovative thinking scores (9.0 ± 1.6 vs. 7.6 ± 1.8, p < 0.01). The PS group reported significantly higher learning interest and satisfaction (p < 0.01). The PS group used IQP more frequently (8.5 ± 2.1 vs. 5.2 ± 1.8, p < 0.001), while the RS group engaged more deeply with LAA (4.8 ± 1.5 vs. 1.2 ± 0.9, p < 0.001). IQP use correlated with basic knowledge (r = 0.42, p < 0.01); LAA use correlated with comprehensive application (r = 0.51, p < 0.001) and innovative thinking (r = 0.46, p < 0.01). Interviews confirmed AI acted as a "tutor" for PS and a "research assistant" for RS.
conclusionPS and RS extensions are associated with complementary competencies. A tiered, AI-differentiated model may support personalized learning to cultivate clinically engaged communicators and critically thinking physician-scientists.
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.