Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Effectiveness of a generative AI-powered digital tutor integrated with a knowledge graph in anatomy education for nursing students: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman Anatomy and Histology & Embryology are foundational courses in nursing education but are often challenging for students due to their complex spatial structures, dense knowledge points, and high cognitive load. Recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI) and knowledge graph technologies provide new opportunities for enhancing medical education. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a blended teaching model integrating a generative AI-powered digital tutor with a knowledge graph in improving learning outcomes among nursing students.
methodsA three-arm parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted among 362 first-year nursing students at Cangzhou Medical College, of whom 301 completed the study. Participants were randomly assigned to an AI-Enhanced Group, a Blended Teaching Group, or a Traditional Teaching Group. All groups followed the same 16-week course structure based on Gagné's Nine Events of Instruction, differing only in the teaching tools and tutoring strategies used. Learning outcomes were evaluated using module examination scores, final comprehensive scores, knowledge graph comprehension scores, knowledge retention rates, case-based inference accuracy, and multidimensional questionnaires. Statistical analyses were conducted using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc comparisons.
resultsSignificant differences were observed among the three groups across multiple learning outcomes. The AI-Enhanced Group achieved higher module scores (82.5 ± 7.3) compared with the Blended Group (77.6 ± 8.1) and Traditional Teaching Group (74.1 ± 8.5) (F = 28.64, p < 0.001). Final comprehensive scores were also significantly higher in the AI-Enhanced Group (84.2 ± 6.8) (F = 32.16, p < 0.001). Knowledge graph comprehension scores showed a large effect size (F = 103.72, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the AI-Enhanced Group demonstrated higher knowledge retention rates (82.3%) and case-based inference accuracy (91.2%) than the comparison groups. Questionnaire results indicated stronger recognition of digital tutors, higher acceptance of blended learning, and improved autonomous learning ability.
conclusionsThe blended teaching model integrating a generative AI-powered digital tutor with a knowledge graph significantly improved nursing students' academic performance, knowledge retention, and clinical reasoning ability. This AI-enhanced instructional model may provide an effective approach for reforming foundational medical education and promoting structured knowledge learning.
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.