ArticleJMIR medical education2026
Benefits of Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Clinical Record Rubric Evaluation in Undergraduate Medical Education: Experimental Evaluation Study With Medical Faculty.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models in artificial intelligence have been among the tools with a significant and real impact on people's daily lives. In this regard, they serve as an aid in specific fields, such as education, helping educators with cumbersome tasks such as periodic evaluations. Objective: This study focused on analyzing the benefits of large language models, particularly the chain-of-thought (CoT) strategy, for the task of evaluating students' Spanish-language medical record writing. The aim was 2-fold: first, we attempted to save time and resources, and second, we used the reasoning of the CoT strategy to evaluate the rubrics and their interpretations. Methods: The proposed solution assessed the application of 2 models-Llama 3.1 and Claude 3.5-in combination with one-shot and CoT to evaluate how medical students write medical records in Spanish. First, machine learning metrics were applied to measure the performance of the solutions. Then, different statistical analyses were performed at the clinical record and item levels. Finally, differences between the proposed models and evaluators were studied in depth. Results: A maximum of 3807 items were evaluated. Claude obtained the best accuracy with slight differences between one-shot and CoT (86.4% and 85.0%, respectively). However, Claude with CoT outperformed the rest of the combinations on all complementary metrics, initially achieving a sensitivity of 94.2%, specificity of 59.5%, precision of 85.8%, and F1-score of 89.6%. Expert review of CoT reasoning determined that 63.8% of the discrepancies were model hits, raising Claude's final accuracy to 94.6% (SD 4.3%). In the final phase, sensitivity was 98.0% (SD 2.3%), specificity improved to 83.3% (SD 14.3%), and F1-score reached 96.2% (SD 3.3%). Sectional analysis showed greater difficulties in the "History of present illness" section (n=125 discordances). Conclusions: CoT demonstrated strong potential for supporting the evaluation of clinical records written in Spanish by medical students and providing feedback to them. More importantly, it showed significant promise in assisting professors by assessing the quality of their rubrics and identifying possible errors.
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.