ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Virtual patients and standardized patients combined training is associated with improved clinical reasoning among medical students.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Effects of Artificial Intelligence-Supported Education on Critical Thinking, Problem-Solving, Clinical Reasoning, and Decision-Making in Health Science Education: A Systematic Review of Interventional Studies.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
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
Objective: To develop an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven virtual standardized patients (VSPs) system, and to evaluate its educational effectiveness when combined with traditional standardized patients (SPs) training. Methods: Leveraging natural language processing and a Chinese large language model, we built an AI-powered VSPs application. A total of 80 medical students at Peking University Third Hospital were randomized into two groups: experimental ( Results: The experimental group showed greater improvement than the control group in clinical reasoning scores (1.3 ± 0.7 vs. 0.3 ± 0.5, 95% CI: 0.73-1.27, Conclusion: Combined VSPs and SPs training showed better performance than the SPs-only approach used in this study.
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.