ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Guiding student use of generative AI in undergraduate pharmacology: a narrative review and proposed source-checking process framework.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has entered undergraduate pharmacology learning through chatbots, writing assistants and large language model (LLM) interfaces. Students now use these tools to clarify mechanisms, compare drug classes, draft case answers, prepare questions and search for medication-related information. The same convenience creates a course-level problem: a response that is fluent and well organized may still contain an incorrect mechanism, an unsupported drug claim, a missing contraindication or a recommendation that does not fit the patient described in a case. This narrative review examines recent work on AI in medical and pharmacy education, with particular attention to pharmacology-relevant teaching tasks. It identifies problems that are especially important for pharmacology courses: hidden AI use, weak source checking of AI-generated drug claims, mechanism explanations that remain descriptive rather than causal, medication suggestions that ignore patient variables and assessment practices that evaluate the submitted answer rather than the reasoning behind it. In response, the article proposes a source-checking process for formative pharmacology coursework tasks in which AI use is permitted, including pre-class preparation, classroom case work, chapter-level tasks and short revision notes. The process asks students to define the task, check drug claims against defined sources, rebuild the pharmacological mechanism, test the answer against patient context and revise with feedback and justification. By embedding AI use within source checking, mechanism reconstruction and patient-context appraisal, this approach may help pharmacology teachers turn generated answers into structured material for learning, discussion and formative assessment.
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.