ArticleJMIR medical education2026
Artificial Intelligence for Assessment and Feedback in Medical Education: Bibliometric Mapping Study and Thematic Evidence Map.
Article in JMIR 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI and large language models, is increasingly used for assessment-related tasks in medical education. Existing overviews often address AI in medical education broadly, limiting assessment-specific interpretation of functions, settings, learner stages, and responsible-AI reporting domains.
objectiveThis study aims to map the literature on AI for assessment and feedback in medical education, including publication trends, bibliometric structure, assessment functions, AI types, settings, learner stages, and reporting of validity, reliability, fairness, integrity, transparency, human oversight, implementation, and governance.
methodsWe conducted a bibliometric mapping study incorporating structured thematic evidence-map coding. Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and PubMed were searched from January 1, 2015, to April 8, 2026. Document selection and main evidence-map coding were based primarily on titles, abstracts, and bibliographic metadata, with targeted ambiguity resolution. Because reporting domains may appear mainly in full-text sections, all 435 included records underwent full-text sensitivity analysis for the 8 reporting domains. Coding reliability was assessed by two coders using percent agreement and Cohen κ before adjudication. Exploratory subgroup analyses and an excluding-2026 partial-year sensitivity analysis were conducted.
resultsSearches identified 14,968 records; 435 were included after deduplication and selection. Overall, 399 (91.7%) records were indexed in the post-ChatGPT period. Generative AI was coded in 310 (71.3%) records, and large language models in 301 (69.2%) records. In the assessment-function umbrella analysis, learner performance evaluation accounted for 270 (62.1%) records, feedback for 93 (21.4%) records, assessment content generation for 65 (14.9%) records, and other or unclear functions for 7 (1.6%) records. The most common settings were board-style examinations (n=151, 34.7%) and written examinations (n=88, 20.2%); undergraduate medical education was the most represented learner stage (n=172, 39.5%). Full-text-confirmed reporting was most frequent for reliability (n=288, 66.2%) and implementation (n=231, 53.1%); intermediate for validity (n=158, 36.3%), fairness (n=132, 30.3%), and transparency (n=130, 29.9%); and less frequent for governance (n=57, 13.1%), human oversight (n=46, 10.6%), and integrity (n=26, 6%). Stage 1 κ values ranged from 0.785 to 0.895, and stage 2 κ values ranged from 0.809 to 0.880. Excluding 65 partial-year 2026 records did not change the overall interpretation.
conclusionsThe indexed English-language literature on AI for assessment and feedback in medical education expanded rapidly in the post-ChatGPT period and was concentrated in generative AI, large language models, examination-oriented assessment, and undergraduate medical education. Future studies should complement examination benchmarking with authentic assessment contexts, distinguish assessment content generation from learner-facing evaluation and feedback, and report responsible assessment domains more consistently.
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.