Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Integrating large language models into prostate cancer training: evidence from comparative benchmarking and a pilot randomized 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored as tools for medical education. However, evidence remains limited regarding their pedagogical quality and real-world utility in prostate cancer teaching within urology residency training.
methodsWe conducted a two-phase study. Phase 1 benchmarked three LLMs (ChatGPT-4o, DeepSeek R1, and Gemini 2.0) on a structured 40-item prostate cancer education question bank using standardized prompts and blinded expert ratings. Phase 2 implemented the top-performing model in a pilot randomized teaching trial among urology residents (n = 34) using stratified block randomization based on a pre-admission standardized test score, with allocation concealment implemented through a centralized web-based system. Both groups received identical offline instruction with a time-matched lecture structure. The control group committed to avoiding LLM use for course-related questions during the teaching period.
resultsDeepSeek R1 ranked highest in expert ratings, with clearer advantages on higher-order and innovation-oriented questions. In the pilot randomized teaching trial (n = 34), the AI-assisted group achieved higher closed-book examination scores than controls (68.47 ± 12.78 vs. 57.91 ± 10.47; MD 10.56, 95% CI 2.39-18.73; p = 0.013). Improvements were most evident in Multiple-Choice Questions(MCQs) (MD 9.27, 95% CI 4.37-14.17; p < 0.001) and research items (MD 3.32, 95% CI 1.72-4.92; p < 0.001), whereas Multidisciplinary Team(MDT) case analysis showed no clear difference. Student and instructor feedback was generally positive.
conclusionLLM-assisted teaching was associated with higher knowledge-based examination performance, especially for MCQ-style and innovation-focused content, while effects on MDT reasoning remain uncertain. These preliminary findings suggest that carefully guided LLM use may support residency teaching, but larger multicenter studies and structured verification workflows are needed to confirm effectiveness and generalizability.
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.