SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
AI-assisted history education in China: a secondary evidence map of psychological antecedents and learning outcomes.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 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
Introduction: Evidence on the use of artificial intelligence in Chinese history education remains fragmented. This study mapped the available secondary evidence and contextualized it with targeted corroboration of history-specific studies. Methods: We analyzed a public bibliographic export of 1,063 records current to 1 April 2024 and conducted targeted full-text corroboration to identify history-education evidence beyond the original repository. After sequential screening, 30 records were retained for the contextual map. An expanded synonym audit was also performed to assess whether any direct history-education studies were missed. Results: Nine records explicitly identified mainland China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan as the study setting, including five primary empirical studies. The synonym audit did not identify a direct history-education study in the repository. Targeted corroboration identified one 2025 mainland-China study of AI-assisted secondary-school history teaching, two systematic reviews describing broader history-education literature, and one adjacent cultural-heritage education study. In the regional subset, emotion/anxiety/cognitive-load outcomes were reported in five records, engagement in four, motivation and self-efficacy in three each, skills/competence in six, and knowledge and performance in five each. Discussion: The repository should be interpreted as a contextual map of secondary evidence rather than a comprehensive estimate of the field. Overall, the evidence suggests emerging but still limited and heterogeneous attention to AI in Chinese history education.
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.