Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42125004›Full record

ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026

When Clinical AI and Learner Reasoning Conflict: An Emerging Educational Blind Spot and a Framework for Pedagogical Response.

Samita M Heslin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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.

Samita M HeslinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasingly, artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled clinical decision support has been incorporated into healthcare settings where trainees of medicine learn. A major pedagogical problem is emerging: at times, when an AI-generated recommendation is presented to learners as part of their training, there is disagreement between the clinical decision support recommendation and learner clinical judgment, reflecting the need to interpret probabilistic AI outputs within clinical reasoning. This article suggests that the frequency of this phenomenon represents a growing educational blind spot; if not addressed by educators, it could negatively affect the development of clinical reasoning among learners, especially in situations where AI outputs are perceived as objective or inherently authoritative rather than probabilistic or fallible, and therefore could potentially hinder the development of the learner's professional identity. This article presents illustrative educational scenarios that show how learner-AI conflicts may occur in educational settings. After presenting the examples, it describes the educational risks that exist when there is no structure to supervise responses to these types of learner-AI conflicts. Finally, it suggests an approach using a 4-stage framework called SEED (Surface-Explore-Evaluate-Decide) to transform learner-AI conflict into an intentional opportunity to learn and provides specific ideas on how to use the SEED framework to create structures for teaching, assessment, and faculty development. In light of the growing presence of technology in all areas of education, it is essential for educators to be prepared to respond to these types of tensions to preserve the values of accountability, thoughtfulness, and humanness in education.

Indexed as

algorithmic transparencyautomation biasclinical decision support systemsepistemic authorityhealth professions educationtrust calibration

Identifiers

PMID42125004
PMCPMC13159958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.