ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
When Clinical AI and Learner Reasoning Conflict: An Emerging Educational Blind Spot and a Framework for Pedagogical Response.
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.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.