ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Effects of Artificial Intelligence-Supported Education on Critical Thinking, Problem-Solving, Clinical Reasoning, and Decision-Making in Health Science Education: A Systematic Review of Interventional Studies.
Review 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models on Four Core Medical School Courses: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
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
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly incorporated into health science education through diagnostic systems, intelligent tutoring systems, adaptive learning platforms, chatbots, virtual patients, and large language models. However, its effects on higher-order cognitive skills remain uncertain. Objective: To synthesize interventional evidence on the effects of AI-supported education on critical thinking, problem-solving, clinical reasoning, and decision-making among health science learners. Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA 2020 and a prospectively registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD420251128495). PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and supplementary sources were searched for interventional studies evaluating AI-supported education and at least one of four predefined cognitive outcomes: critical thinking, problem-solving, clinical reasoning, or decision-making. Searches were updated through 24 August 2026. Randomized studies were assessed using RoB 2, non-randomized intervention studies using ROBINS-I, and quasi-experimental studies using JBI critical appraisal criteria. Findings were synthesized narratively and classified as positive, null, mixed, or negative. Results: Twenty-nine interventional studies involving 2138 participants met the eligibility criteria. The included studies evaluated conventional and generative AI technologies, including diagnostic AI systems, intelligent tutoring systems, AI-enabled chatbots, generative image systems, and large language models. Findings varied across the four cognitive outcomes. Structured AI-supported interventions frequently demonstrated favorable effects on selected clinical reasoning, decision-making, problem-solving, and critical-thinking outcomes; however, null, mixed, and negative findings were also reported, particularly when AI was compared with established educational resources or used without structured instructional guidance. Conclusion: AI-supported education may enhance selected higher-order cognitive outcomes among health science learners, but the evidence is inconsistent across technologies, instructional designs, comparators, and cognitive constructs. Structured integration that preserves active learner engagement and independent reasoning appears important. Further rigorous studies using validated outcome measures and assessments of sustained, unaided performance are needed.
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.