ArticleJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2026
Large language model-generated versus teacher-written objective structured clinical examination stations for medical students: a blinded comparative pilot study.
Article in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Presidential inaugural address 2026: expanding computer-based testing, strengthening clinical competency assessment, and adopting artificial intelligence with caution in health professions licensing examinations in Korea.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2026Article
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
Developing objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) stations is time-consuming for medical teachers. We aimed to evaluate the ability of a large language model (LLM) to generate ready-to-use OSCE stations. Five OSCE stations generated by the LLM GPT-4o were evaluated by 7 expert assessors using a 5-point Likert scale and compared with 5 teacher-written stations targeting similar learning objectives. A station was considered to be of good quality if most assessors responded "agree" or "strongly agree" to the statement "The station is good enough to be used by students." All teacher-written stations were rated as being of good quality, compared with only one GPT-4o-generated station. The LLM produced adequate clinical scenarios when reference knowledge was provided and tasks were clearly ordered, but it failed to generate reliable assessment grids. Careful review by teachers remained essential. GPT-4o failed to consistently produce fully ready-to-use OSCE stations.
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.