ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2026
Evaluating the Educational Value of Artificial Intelligence in Pharmacotherapy Education.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.