ArticleBMC medical education2026
Effectiveness of an AI-augmented teacher feedback model in improving medical students' clinical documentation skills: a retrospective cohort study.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical documentation is central to evaluating medical students' clinical competence. However, traditional teacher feedback is often inefficient, inconsistent, or delayed. This study evaluates the effectiveness of an AI-augmented teacher feedback model in improving medical students' clinical documentation skills, in which AI-generated feedback was added to conventional teacher feedback.
methodsFifty medical interns participated in this retrospective cohort study (25 each in the AI-assisted enhancement group and a traditional group). After completing their medical records, the AI-assisted group received structured feedback reports generated by AI (DeepSeek V3), including dimension-specific scores and improvement suggestions, as well as teacher feedback. The traditional group received teacher feedback only. Thus, the intervention evaluated represents a combined AI-plus-teacher model, not an isolated test of AI. Both groups completed and were assessed on another medical record before the end of their rotation. All records were scored by an AI system according to the Admission Record Writing Quality Evaluation Standard (2024 Edition) in three phases: Phase 1-assessment of AI scoring reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) based on 20 records blindly evaluated by two experts, Phase 2-analysis of the correlation between post-rotation AI scores and Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX) scores, and Phase 3-ANCOVA for comparing post-rotation AI scores between groups, controlling for baseline AI scores and case complexity.
resultsAI scores demonstrated high consistency with expert ratings (ICC = 0.893) and a significant correlation with Mini-CEX scores (r = 0.579, p < 0.001). After controlling for baseline differences, the AI-assisted group achieved significantly higher post-rotation AI scores (11.15 points) than the traditional group (9.09 points), with a mean difference of 2.058 points (p = 0.041), representing a relative improvement of 22.6%. A subgroup analysis revealed a significant effect in low-complexity cases (p = 0.007) but not in medium-high complexity cases (p = 0.798). Sensitivity analyses showed that the main findings were not affected by covariate selection or sample exclusion.
conclusionsThe generative AI scoring tool based on large language models was consistent with expert ratings. The combined AI-augmented teacher feedback model showed a preliminary association with higher post-rotation AI scores compared to traditional teacher feedback alone, particularly in low-complexity cases.
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.