ArticleAnatomical sciences education2026
Application of artificial intelligence-generated clinical cases in case-based learning of histology and embryology.
Article in Anatomical sciences 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To investigate the effectiveness of a case-based learning (CBL) approach in histology and embryology, integrating instructor-reviewed, AI-assisted clinical cases within a Structure-Function-Clinical (SFC) framework. Undergraduate students from Hangzhou City University's 2022 cohort (control, n = 150) and 2023 cohort (experimental, n = 147) participated. The experimental group engaged in an SFC-oriented CBL approach, utilizing instructor-reviewed, AI-generated clinical cases systematically integrated into the curriculum. The control group received conventional lecture-based instruction without case activities. Effectiveness was evaluated by comparing academic performance (formative assessments, midterms, finals, overall grades) and student satisfaction. The experimental group significantly outperformed the control group in formative assessments, midterms, and overall course grades. While total final exam scores showed no significant difference, the experimental group had a higher proportion of high-scoring students. Regarding satisfaction surveys, the experimental group reported significantly higher ratings in specific dimensions, including learning engagement, clinical relevance, SFC clarity, and perceived effectiveness (all q < 0.05), although overall satisfaction scores did not differ significantly after correction (q = 0.056). Notably, these improvements were achieved without increasing perceived cognitive load (q > 0.05). An SFC-oriented CBL approach, supported by instructor-reviewed, AI-assisted cases, effectively enhances students' ability to apply histological and embryological knowledge in clinical contexts without increasing cognitive load. This method successfully bridges foundational morphological knowledge with clinical practice, offering a practical, scalable model for integrating AI into basic medical education.
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.