ArticleJMIR medical education2026
Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Peer Teaching in Orthopedic Clinical Education: Historical Cohort Study.
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.
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.
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
backgroundPeer teaching is an established pedagogical approach in medical education; yet, traditional methods face challenges including inconsistent knowledge support, variable teaching quality, and limited scalability. Artificial intelligence (AI) large language models offer potential to augment peer teaching by providing on-demand access to medical knowledge and clinical reasoning support. However, AI integration within structured peer teaching has not been systematically evaluated in clinical education.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of AI-assisted peer teaching compared to traditional peer teaching in orthopedic clinical education, with respect to knowledge acquisition, clinical skills development (particularly clinical reasoning), student engagement, and 3-month knowledge retention.
methodsThis historical cohort study compared 2 consecutive cohorts of medical students (aged 20-27 years, 108/190, 56.8% male) at the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China. All eligible students from each cohort were enrolled. The control group (2021 cohort, n=96, taught in 2024) received traditional peer teaching; the intervention group (2022 cohort, n=94, taught in 2025) received AI-assisted peer teaching with access to DeepSeek-V3. Primary outcomes were assessed using a validated 50-item multiple-choice examination (0-100 points) and a 4-station Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE; 0-100 points) with standardized rubrics (intraclass correlation coefficient>0.85). Secondary outcomes included student engagement and satisfaction (5-point Likert scales) and AI usage metrics. Assessments were conducted at baseline, postintervention (8 weeks), and 3-month follow-up. Analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline knowledge, prior AI experience, and learning interest to address observed baseline imbalances.
resultsUsing independent samples t tests (α=.05, 2-tailed), the AI-assisted group demonstrated significantly higher postintervention knowledge scores (mean 79.69, SD 8.41 vs mean 75.33, SD 9.26; mean difference=4.36, 95% CI 1.84-6.87; P<.001; Cohen d=0.49). OSCE total scores were significantly higher (mean 80.95, SD 7.57 vs mean 76.24, SD 9.23; mean difference=4.71, 95% CI 2.31-7.11; P<.001; d=0.56), with clinical reasoning showing the largest effect (mean difference=2.22, 95% CI 1.18-3.25; P<.001; d=0.61). Analysis of covariance adjusted results remained significant for all primary outcomes (adjusted knowledge difference=3.52, P=.002; adjusted OSCE difference=4.52, P<.001). At 3-month follow-up (174/190, 91.6%), the AI-assisted group maintained higher knowledge scores (mean 77.36, SD 8.60 vs mean 72.84, SD 10.42; mean difference=4.52, 95% CI 1.68-7.36; P=.002; d=0.47), with similar knowledge decay rates between groups.
conclusionsThis study provides the first systematic evidence that integrating AI tools within structured peer teaching enhances orthopedic clinical education across multiple domains, including knowledge acquisition, OSCE performance, and student engagement. Unlike prior studies examining AI as a stand-alone learning tool, this work demonstrates the synergistic potential of combining AI knowledge support with peer teaching's social learning benefits, with particularly strong effects on clinical reasoning. These findings support scalable, cost-effective implementation of AI-augmented peer teaching, though randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm causality and determine optimal implementation strategies.
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.