Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42162959›Full record

ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2026

Evaluating the Educational Value of Artificial Intelligence in Pharmacotherapy Education.

Mariëlle G Hartjes, Michiel J Bakkum, Milan C Richir, Michiel A van Agtmael, Jelle Tichelaar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 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

5 authors.

Mariëlle G HartjesAmsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Unit Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Michiel J BakkumAmsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Unit Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Milan C RichirAmsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Unit Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Michiel A van AgtmaelAmsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Unit Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7966-6934
Jelle TichelaarAmsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Unit Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Final-year medical students frequently make prescribing errors, partly because they have had insufficient training in therapeutic reasoning. Students need to understand the underlying rationale behind a drug choice in order to subsequently apply that knowledge critically and independently. Artificial intelligence (AI) models are becoming increasingly popular among students for therapeutic case solving, but the educational value of these models remains unclear. Therefore, the reasoning process of ChatGPT 3.5 (a general AI model) and EvidenceHunt basic (a specialized medical AI model) was compared with that of a medical specialist/clinical pharmacologist, according to the WHO 6-step. Although both AI models proposed reasonable treatment options, notable differences from those of the medical specialist were observed. The AI models tended to focus primarily on pharmacological recommendations for the main clinical problem, giving less consideration to broader contextual factors, such as the severity of illness. Some inaccuracies and illogical therapeutic alternatives were also identified. While AI models, such as ChatGPT and EvidenceHunt, show potential to improve education in therapeutic reasoning by suggesting plausible treatment options, their reasoning remains limited. They often justify rather than critically evaluate treatment choices, which restricts their depth, especially when it comes to considering alternative therapies and complex patient factors. For AI to be of real educational benefit, students will need to develop reflective skills so that they can critically appraise AI recommendations instead of passively accepting them. Teachers can encourage this by asking students to explain their treatment choices, thereby helping them to strengthen these skills.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEducation, MedicalGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansStudents, Medicalartificial intelligenceeducationmedical educationprescribing

Identifiers

PMID42162959
PMCPMC13239473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.