Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39588809›Full record

ArticlePain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain2025

Artificial intelligence and pain medicine education: Benefits and pitfalls for the medical trainee.

Michael Glicksman, Sheri Wang, Samir Yellapragada, Christopher Robinson, Vwaire Orhurhu, Trent Emerick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Artificial intelligence and pain medicine education: Benefits and pitfalls for the medical trainee.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael GlicksmanDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4882-6851
Sheri WangDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Samir YellapragadaUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Christopher RobinsonDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6276-9056
Vwaire OrhurhuUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), Susquehanna, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, USA.
Trent EmerickDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Chronic Pain Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3802-5946

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI) represents an exciting and evolving technology that is increasingly being utilized across pain medicine. Large language models (LLMs) are one type of AI that has become particularly popular. Currently, there is a paucity of literature analyzing the impact that AI may have on trainee education. As such, we sought to assess the benefits and pitfalls that AI may have on pain medicine trainee education. Given the rapidly increasing popularity of LLMs, we particularly assessed how these LLMs may promote and hinder trainee education through a pilot quality improvement project. MATERIALS AND

methodsA comprehensive search of the existing literature regarding AI within medicine was performed to identify its potential benefits and pitfalls within pain medicine. The pilot project was approved by UPMC Quality Improvement Review Committee (#4547). Three of the most commonly utilized LLMs at the initiation of this pilot study - ChatGPT Plus, Google Bard, and Bing AI - were asked a series of multiple choice questions to evaluate their ability to assist in learner education within pain medicine.

resultsPotential benefits of AI within pain medicine trainee education include ease of use, imaging interpretation, procedural/surgical skills training, learner assessment, personalized learning experiences, ability to summarize vast amounts of knowledge, and preparation for the future of pain medicine. Potential pitfalls include discrepancies between AI devices and associated cost-differences, correlating radiographic findings to clinical significance, interpersonal/communication skills, educational disparities, bias/plagiarism/cheating concerns, lack of incorporation of private domain literature, and absence of training specifically for pain medicine education. Regarding the quality improvement project, ChatGPT Plus answered the highest percentage of all questions correctly (16/17). Lowest correctness scores by LLMs were in answering first-order questions, with Google Bard and Bing AI answering 4/9 and 3/9 first-order questions correctly, respectively. Qualitative evaluation of these LLM-provided explanations in answering second- and third-order questions revealed some reasoning inconsistencies (e.g., providing flawed information in selecting the correct answer).

conclusionsAI represents a continually evolving and promising modality to assist trainees pursuing a career in pain medicine. Still, limitations currently exist that may hinder their independent use in this setting. Future research exploring how AI may overcome these challenges is thus required. Until then, AI should be utilized as supplementary tool within pain medicine trainee education and with caution.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePain ManagementClinical CompetenceEducation, MedicalHumansPilot Projectspainpain assessment

Identifiers

PMID39588809
PMCPMC11683517

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.