Trial reportThe clinical teacher2026
Artificially Intelligent Simulated Patients in Undergraduate Surgical Teaching: A Single Blinded Randomized Controlled Study.
Trial report in The clinical teacher, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
Abstract
introductionSelf-directed learning (SDL) and reflection are critically important for clinicians. There is limited evidence describing the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) to support medical SDL. AI simulated patients (AISP) may allow for high-fidelity, reflective educational interactions. We aimed to determine how SDL with AISP interaction compared to standard SDL in the development of clinical reasoning skills.
methodsThis was a single-institution randomized controlled study in early clinical years' undergraduate students, learning about gallstone disease. For 90% power and a 20% noninferiority margin, 36 participants were randomized either to an intervention group using an AISP or to a control group using current educational resources. Both groups underwent a standardized clinical skills assessment. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected.
resultsTwenty-seven participants completed the study. The intervention group demonstrated statistical noninferiority compared with the control group (assessment scores of 13.1 vs. 12.1, respectively, p = 0.11). In addition, there were fewer borderline grades, and significantly more distinction grades in the intervention group than control (6 vs. 1, respectively, p = 0.037), suggesting the AISP may have improved performance in clinical management. The qualitative data suggested widespread satisfaction and enthusiasm for AISPs.
conclusionOur results suggest that AISPs are comparable to traditional resources in developing undergraduate clinical skills, and may contribute to improved academic performance in undergraduate surgery. Globally, there is an appetite for their introduction into the clinical curriculum. Real patient interaction is the standard. However, AISPs may have a supplementary role and are likely to become increasingly prominent in medical curricula.
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.