Trial reportPerspectives on medical education2026
Pedagogical Efficacy of LLM-Generated Synthetic Data Versus Real-World Clinical Records: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial.
Trial report in Perspectives on medical education, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Expert-reviewed clinical cases generated by large language models (LLMs) may supplement case resources in medical education, but their short-term educational performance relative to real-case-derived teaching materials remains uncertain. We compared immediate post-training test performance after teaching with the two types of case materials and assessed non-inferiority against a prespecified margin. Methods: We conducted a prospective, parallel-group, randomized non-inferiority trial. Through the Wenjuanxing online platform, participants were randomized 1:1 to learn with either real-case-derived teaching cases compiled by clinicians and reviewed by experts or AI-generated clinical cases produced by Gemini 3.0 Pro from fully de-identified matched real cases and reviewed by three senior general surgery specialists with full-professor rank. The primary outcome was the total score on an independent 10-item immediate post-training test (0-10 points), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.5 points. Secondary outcomes included the training-phase performance score, learning efficiency index, single-item mental effort rating, case realism, and case-source judgment. Results: A total of 403 participants were randomized, of whom 386 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 192 in the real-case group and 194 in the AI-generated case group. The mean post-training test score was 4.95 (SD, 3.35) in the real-case group and 4.61 (SD, 3.35) in the AI-generated case group. The mean difference (AI-generated minus real-case group) was -0.335 points (95% CI, -1.006 to 0.337). Because the lower bound of the confidence interval was below the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.5 points, non-inferiority was not demonstrated (one-sided P = 0.314). No significant between-group differences were observed in the training-phase performance score, learning efficiency index, or single-item mental effort rating. AI-generated cases received lower realism ratings for Level 3 cases. The proportion of participants with at least one high-confidence completely incorrect response was 1.6% in the real-case group and 2.1% in the AI-generated case group. Conclusions: In this short-term, text-based online case-learning setting, no statistically significant between-group difference was observed in immediate post-training test performance; however, non-inferiority of AI-generated clinical cases relative to real-case-derived teaching materials was not demonstrated.
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.