ReviewJournal of CME2026
Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedic Education Across the Career Continuum: Moving from Benchmark Performance to Continuing Professional Development.
Review in Journal of CME, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is entering orthopaedic education through image interpretation, simulation, technical skill assessment, examination support and content generation. Most evidence, however, comes from undergraduate and postgraduate settings, whereas practising surgeons require continuing medical education and continuing professional development (CME/CPD) that supports safe adoption, maintenance of competence and practice improvement. This matters because AI may improve task performance while it is present without producing durable learning or safer independent practice. This critical narrative review asks: what learner benefit does the current orthopaedic education literature demonstrate, and how should that evidence be translated into AI-enabled CME/CPD for practising orthopaedic clinicians? Orthopaedic-specific reviews and primary studies were synthesised and supplemented by a targeted PubMed and Google Scholar update through 4 August 2026. Across modalities, a consistent pattern emerges: AI is strongest in tightly bounded tasks with objective outputs, whereas evidence for retention, transfer, workplace performance and patient benefit is sparse. Diagnostic support can improve accuracy, speed or confidence while available; machine-learning models can distinguish expertise levels in selected simulated procedures; and large language models perform strongly on some text-based examinations but remain vulnerable to explanation errors, hallucinated reasoning, model and version dependence, and image-rich tasks. One recent historical cohort study suggests that structured AI-assisted peer teaching may improve knowledge, clinical reasoning and three-month retention. We therefore propose an AI-specific outcomes framework that separates model capability and assisted performance from learning, transfer, workplace performance and patient or system outcomes, alongside four design principles for CPD. For CME/CPD, the priority is not simply to use AI more often, but to ensure that AI-enabled education produces demonstrable learning, safe transfer and improved practice.
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.