ArticleSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2026
Comparison of artificial intelligence and lecturers' grading in the evaluation of handwritten open-ended anatomy examinations.
Article in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots in grading handwritten open-ended anatomy examinations and examined whether providing a standardized answer key improved agreement with lecturers' grading.
methodsExamination papers from 81 s-year dental students were included. The examination comprised 10 open-ended questions, each worth 10 points. Two anatomists graded all papers using a standardized answer key, and the mean of their scores was used as lecturers' grading. Four AI chatbots-ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, and DeepSeek-graded each paper under two conditions: without an answer key and with an answer key and detailed grading criteria. Agreement with lecturers' grading was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsDifferences were observed among the nine grading methods (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between lecturers' grading and ChatGPT scores obtained either without or with the answer key. ChatGPT showed the highest agreement with lecturers' grading after the answer key was provided (ICC = 0.923, 95% CI [0.883, 0.950]), followed by ChatGPT without the answer key (ICC = 0.904, 95% CI [0.855, 0.937]). Gemini and Copilot showed good agreement without the answer key, but agreement decreased when the answer key was provided. DeepSeek demonstrated the lowest agreement under both conditions.
conclusionAI chatbot grading performance varied across models. ChatGPT produced scores most closely aligned with lecturers' grading, whereas providing a standardized answer key did not consistently improve performance. AI-assisted grading may support assessment in anatomy education, but human oversight and structured grading criteria remain essential, particularly in high-stakes examinations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42675315What 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.