ArticleBMC medical education2026
Diagnostic reasoning with and without AI: automation bias in pre-clerkship medical students.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs large language models become increasingly integrated into clinical workflows, medical students need structured opportunities to learn how to engage critically with artificial intelligence (AI) during diagnostic reasoning. Empirical evaluation of automation bias and other risks of AI use in pre-clerkship training remains limited.
methodsWe piloted a two-component exercise for second-year pre-clerkship medical students: an introductory lecture on AI capabilities and limitations followed by a custom-built web application integrating an AI chatbot into a diagnostic reasoning case in which students ranked their differential diagnoses before and after AI access and rated the perceived influence of AI on their reasoning. Diagnostic accuracy was scored against predefined criteria. Descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated.
resultsIn a sample of 185 students, AI use was associated with increased diagnostic accuracy (Wilcoxon signed-rank Z = -4.21, P < .001), with the greatest benefit concentrated among students with lower performance before AI use. Both students whose accuracy improved (n = 65) and those whose accuracy worsened (n = 26) after AI use rated AI as more influential than students whose accuracy did not change (Z = -2.74, P = .006 and Z = -3.23, P = .001, respectively), suggesting that perceived influence was related to whether AI changed students' rankings, regardless of whether the change was beneficial or detrimental.
conclusionsStudents benefited most from AI when their baseline diagnostic accuracy was weakest but did not appear to reliably distinguish helpful from harmful AI influence, consistent with automation bias. Foundational coursework on AI and its limitations, paired with AI-integrated case practice and faculty-led debriefing, offers one training approach to address this challenge.
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.