ArticleBMC medical education2026
AI-powered simulated patients with automated feedback for enhancing headache history-taking skills: a convergent mixed-methods 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical students often struggle with headache disorders, which are common but diagnostically challenging due to limited clinical exposure and feedback during early clinical training. This study evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of an AI-powered simulated patient (AISP) chatbot in enhancing history-taking and clinical reasoning for three primary headache disorders-migraine, tension-type, and cluster headache-among medical students at a tertiary university hospital in Thailand.
methodsWe developed a simulated patient platform that provided automated, rubric-based feedback across three headache cases. Third-year medical students who had completed pre-clerkship requirements participated in a mixed-methods experimental study with a pre-post design. The study consisted of a 1-week self-study phase followed by a pre-test Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), a 1-week washout period, and a 1-week AISP practice phase followed by a post-test OSCE. Quantitative outcomes included changes in OSCE scores, Clinical Reasoning Indicator-History Taking (CRI-HT) scores, usability/satisfaction measured using the Chatbot Usability Questionnaire (CUQ). Focus group discussions (FGDs) explored participants' learning experiences, perceived system limitations, and recommendations for future implementation. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically.
resultsTwenty-five medical students participated. OSCE scores increased by 22.5 points (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.93), and CRI-HT scores increased by 8.8 points (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.81). CUQ findings indicated high usability. Students commonly cited the platform's intuitive interface and informative feedback, although some noted the chatbot's responses were overly robotic. FGDs further highlighted three themes: (1) convenient, structured practice support learning; (2) dialogue felt realistic but was limited for practicing communication skills; and (3) students recommended greater case variety and integration into the curriculum.
conclusionsAn AISP platform with automated, rubric-based feedback was feasible and associated with improvements in headache history-taking and clinical reasoning. It serves as a valuable complement to traditional teaching by enabling structured, repeated practice with timely feedback.
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.