Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42241685›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2026

AI-Assisted Formative Assessment in Clinical Education: From Algorithms to Agency.

Quang Thanh Nguyen, Thuy Minh Ha, Tina Mai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Quang Thanh Nguyen *College of Health Sciences, VinUniversity, Da Ton, Gia Lam, Hanoi, Hanoi, 100000, Vietnam, 84 89902123.ORCID 0000-0001-8413-1910
Thuy Minh Ha *Center for Medical and Health Sciences Education, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-2256-200X
Tina MaiSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0008-3140-387X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unlabelled: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping clinical education by embedding assessment and feedback into everyday learning activities. Medical students can now use machine learning dashboards, generative AI, large language models, and emerging agentic systems to practice clinical reasoning, communication, and procedural skills while receiving individualized feedback within seconds. However, the availability of more data and more feedback does not necessarily produce better learning. This Viewpoint is intended for clinical educators, assessment leaders, curriculum committees, faculty developers, and institutional leaders who must decide how AI should be used in formative activities without reducing education to automated scoring. AI-assisted formative assessment is defined in this paper as the intentional use of AI tools to generate, organize, and support interpretation of performance information for learning rather than grading. Its distinctive contribution lies in the scale, adaptivity, conversational simulation, pattern detection, and possible autonomy of AI systems. However, AI outputs become formative only when learners and educators interpret them critically, judge their trustworthiness, and translate them into a small number of focused follow-on learning actions. This paper synthesizes the current evidence base while noting that much of it remains early, heterogeneous, and concentrated in short-term or single-setting studies. It examines key risks, including hallucination, automation bias, epistemic overtrust, hidden curricular effects, and broader concerns related to professional identity, power asymmetries, data privacy, and inequitable access. It also presents context-specific implementation examples for preclinical case-based learning, communication and objective structured clinical examination preparation, procedural skill laboratories, clerkship learning, and programmatic assessment portfolios, together with practical implications for faculty development, institutional governance, and phased local implementation. As a Viewpoint rather than an empirical study or systematic review, the framework and examples should be interpreted as evidence-informed design propositions that require local evaluation and validation. Overall, the value of AI-assisted formative assessment depends less on the volume of AI-generated feedback than on educational designs that preserve learner agency, professional judgment, and human accountability.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEducational MeasurementEducation, MedicalAlgorithmsClinical CompetenceHumansAIartificial intelligenceclinical educationfeedbackformative assessmentmedical education

Identifiers

PMID42241685
PMCPMC13235976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.