Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Application of an AI-enabled personalized medical education model for improving clinical thinking among cardiovascular surgery trainees.
Trial report in BMC 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCardiovascular surgery involves complex clinical scenarios and high demands on clinical judgment. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled personalized teaching model in cardiovascular surgery training.
methodsFrom February to June 2025, 158 trainees in the department of cardiovascular surgery at our hospital were randomly assigned to an experimental group (n = 79) or a control group (n = 79). The control group received conventional teaching, including lectures, bedside teaching, and case discussions. The experimental group received a personalized teaching model integrating an intelligent question bank, staged case-based teaching, and AI-based standardized patient training. Outcomes included theoretical examination scores, the Chinese version of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CTDI-CV), clinical interview performance, and teaching satisfaction.
resultsThe experimental group achieved significantly higher theoretical examination scores than the control group (84.56 ± 5.07 vs. 77.95 ± 9.04, P < 0.001). CTDI-CV results showed significantly higher total scores and higher scores in truth-seeking, open-mindedness, analyticity, systematicity, and inquisitiveness in the experimental group (all P < 0.05). In the clinical interview assessment, the experimental group scored significantly higher in completeness of information collection, communication skills, diagnostic reasoning, and overall performance (all P < 0.001), while the between-group difference in empathy was not significant (P = 0.328). Teaching satisfaction in the experimental group was high, with an overall satisfaction score of 4.68 ± 0.39.
conclusionThe AI-enabled personalized teaching model may represent a feasible and effective approach for cardiovascular surgery education. It was associated with higher theoretical examination scores, better critical thinking disposition, higher scores in several dimensions of simulated clinical interview performance, and high learner satisfaction. Further studies are needed to confirm its broader applicability and long-term educational value.
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.