ArticleBMC medical education2026
Effectiveness and students' perception of tutor-guided AI navigation in undergraduate medical education in Sri Lanka: a quasi-experimental study.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, into undergraduate medical education offers new opportunities for personalized learning. However, concerns remain regarding content accuracy, possible over-reliance and limited critical engagement when AI tools are used without guidance. Tutor-guided AI navigation has been proposed as a structured approach combining AI accessibility with educator oversight. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and perception of tutor-guided AI navigation among medical undergraduates.
methodsThe study was conducted among 87 final-year medical students at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. A quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test design compared knowledge gains following tutor-guided versus self-directed ChatGPT-assisted learning. A cross-sectional survey assessing three domains-Perception of Learning Experience, AI Usability and Confidence, Satisfaction and Overall Impression- was administered immediately after the session. Responses were measured using a five-point Likert scale. Internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach's alpha and descriptive statistics were analysed using SPSS.
resultsBaseline pre-test scores were comparable between groups (W = 670.5, p = 0.153). Both groups improved significantly from pre- to post-test (p < 0.001), with median scores increasing from 4 to 7. Knowledge gain between groups was not statistically significant (Welch's t = 1.07, p = 0.144), although the effect size (Hedges' g = 0.36) suggested a small-to-moderate advantage for tutor guidance. In the perception survey, reliability was high (Cronbach's alpha > 0.86). Students rated ease of use (4.19 ± 1.07), tutor-guided AI experience (4.03 ± 1.13), satisfaction (3.91 ± 0.94) and willingness to recommend (4.01 ± 0.97) favourably, while trust in AI accuracy was moderate (3.27 ± 0.91).
conclusionTutor-guided AI-assisted learning was well accepted by students and provided a positive, structured learning experience. Although it did not produce a statistically significant advantage in immediate knowledge gain over self-directed AI use, it was associated with favourable perceptions of usability, satisfaction and recommendation. These findings support the structured integration of tutor-guided AI into undergraduate medical education while maintaining educator oversight and critical appraisal of AI-generated content.
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.