ArticlePRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)2026
Comparative Outcomes of ChatGPT Versus Faculty-Facilitated Simulation Design by Medical Students.
Article in PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.), 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
Introduction: Limited research describes generative artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models, such as ChatGPT, to support the design of health care simulation-based manikin scenarios (SBMS). This pilot study describes the design process and quality assessment of SBMS designed by medical students with ChatGPT generative AI support (AIG scenarios) compared to those designed by medical student interest groups (MSIG) with faculty guidance (MSIG scenarios). Methods: Based on this medical school simulation center's scenario design template, we compared the time to completion of the scenario between five MSIG SBMS and five AIG SBMS on the same clinical topics. Three blinded simulation experts rated all randomized scenarios using the Simulation Scenario Evaluation Tool (SSET). We performed paired Results: MSIG SBMS design required months of faculty-student collaboration, whereas AIG SBMS were completed in a mean of 37 minutes. AIG scenarios had significantly higher Scenario Materials and Resources SSET scores. We found no differences in other SSET elements or overall scores. Rater agreement across most categories was low. The Debriefing Plan element received the lowest scores in both groups. Conclusions: This study supports the potential of simulation novices using ChatGPT to streamline health care SBMS design. AIG scenarios required less time to create and were comparable in quality to MSIG scenarios. By accelerating the initial scenario design process, AI offers an efficient tool for developing educational simulations, expanding opportunities for students to engage in scenario design as an educational methodology.
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.