ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Association of AI-Assisted Training with Learning Outcomes in Lung Cancer Puncture Ablation: A Retrospective Before-and-After Study.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: AI-assisted training has been introduced into interventional radiology education, but its association with learning outcomes in lung cancer puncture ablation remains insufficiently defined. Methods: This single-center retrospective before-and-after study included 69 early-career interventional physicians who underwent six-month refresher training between January 2020 and December 2024. Trainees were allocated by training period: conventional senior physician-guided training before August 2022 (n=38) and AI-assisted training after implementation of the AI planning/visualization system (n=31). De-identified patient-level ablation outcomes were extracted from the institutional electronic medical database under ethics approval and waiver of written informed consent. Results: Compared with conventional training, AI-assisted training was associated with shorter time to competency (median 43 vs 84 days; absolute difference, -41 days) and fewer supervised cases before independent performance (21 vs 31.5 cases; absolute difference, -10.5 cases). Radiation exposure during training was lower in the AI-assisted group (12.8 ± 2.20 vs 21.1 ± 3.78 mSv; mean difference, -8.3 mSv; approximate 95% CI, -9.7 to -6.9). Initial independent procedure time was also shorter (48.7 ± 8.28 vs 62.2 ± 5.92 min; mean difference, -13.5 min; approximate 95% CI, -17.0 to -10.0). Complete ablation rates were similar (80.7% vs 81.3%). Pneumothorax (5.0% vs 12.5%; risk difference, -7.6 percentage points; approximate 95% CI, -10.1 to -5.1) and hemoptysis (12.7% vs 16.9%; risk difference, -4.2 percentage points; approximate 95% CI, -7.6 to -0.9) were less frequent in the AI-assisted cohort. Conclusion: AI-assisted training was associated with faster acquisition of procedural independence, lower occupational radiation exposure, shorter early procedure times, and fewer selected minor-to-moderate complications, while maintaining comparable ablation efficacy. Because of the retrospective non-randomized before-and-after design, these findings should be interpreted as associations and require confirmation in prospective multicenter studies.
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.