ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Evaluating a Custom Chatbot in Undergraduate Medical Education: Randomised Crossover Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Performance, Utility, and Perceptions.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile LLM chatbots are gaining popularity in medical education, their pedagogical impact remains under-evaluated. This study examined the effects of a domain-specific chatbot on performance, perception, and cognitive engagement among medical students.
methodsTwenty first-year medical students completed two academic tasks using either a custom-built educational chatbot (Lenny AI by qVault) or conventional study methods in a randomised, crossover design. Performance was assessed through Single Best Answer (SBA) questions, while post-task surveys (Likert scales) and focus groups were employed to explore user perceptions. Statistical tests compared performance and perception metrics; qualitative data underwent thematic analysis with independent coding (κ = 0.403-0.633).
resultsParticipants rated the chatbot significantly higher than conventional resources for ease of use, satisfaction, engagement, perceived quality, and clarity (
conclusionsThe custom chatbot improved usability; effects on deeper learning were not detected within the tasks studied. Future designs should support adaptive scaffolding, transparent sourcing, and critical engagement to improve educational value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.