Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42552099›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear medicine technology2026

AI-Empowered Nuclear Medicine Education, Part 3: Practical AI Applications for Learners.

Keith M Jacobs, Justin G Peacock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nuclear medicine technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Keith M JacobsSchool of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland; and.
Justin G PeacockSchool of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland; and justin.peacock@usuhs.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Expanding clinical volumes, evolving radiopharmaceuticals, and new imaging technologies shape the training environment for nuclear medicine (NM) learners. Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly available. These tools can draft study guides, generate questions, simulate patient interactions, critique explanations, organize sources, and assist early research development. However, these benefits require disciplined use, because AI tools can also generate inaccurate, biased, unsupported, or overly fluent responses that interfere with durable learning. This learner-focused article provides practical AI workflows for NM technology students, residents, and fellows. It emphasizes preserving self-regulated learning, professional judgment, accountability, and source verification. Building on the theoretical foundations of part 1, this article treats AI as a structured learning partner rather than an educational authority. Direct evidence regarding NM learner outcomes remains limited. Nevertheless, broader health professions literature supports cautious AI exploration when learners prioritize verification, critical evaluation, and feedback over passive answer generation. Effective workflows require goal setting, initial independent effort, misconception identification, retrieval practice, self-explanation, source grounding, faculty review, and iterative revision. Furthermore, learners must avoid protected information, respect copyright, disclose AI assistance, and maintain skepticism toward generated output.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceLearningNuclear MedicineHumansartificial intelligencemedical educationnuclear medicine educationprompt engineeringself-regulated learning

Identifiers

PMID42552099
PMCPMC13544230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.