ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Integrating large language models into medical undergraduate laboratory course to enhance bioethical competence: a quasi-experimental study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. 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
Objective: This study investigates the integration of different large language models (LLMs) into the Medical Cell Biology Laboratory Course (MCBLC) to enhance bioethics training for undergraduate medical students in China. It further compares the effectiveness of these LLMs in improving teaching outcomes and student learning performances. Key challenges encountered during implementation were identified, and potential strategies to address them were also explored. Methods: First-year undergraduate medical students from three medical majors were assigned to five groups. The study involved three phases: instructor-led course introduction, LLM-assisted experimental practice addressing procedural, conceptual, and psychological challenges, and post-training evaluation via questionnaires and blind-graded laboratory reports. Four domestic robust LLMs (DeepSeek, Doubao, KIMI, ChatGLM) were compared to assess their impact on bioethics integration, instructional effectiveness, and student learning outcomes, while documenting students' perceptions and concerns regarding LLM use. Results: The study demonstrated that all four LLMs supported first-year undergraduate medical students in consolidating foundational knowledge, enhancing bioethics proficiency during laboratory practice, and developing critical competencies for future physicians. Questionnaires from 86 students across three majors indicated generally high satisfaction. For Medical Imaging Technology students, DeepSeek (mean 4.3, SD 0.7) and KIMI (mean 4.3, SD 0.8) were rated significantly higher than Doubao (mean 3.9, SD 0.7) and ChatGLM (mean 3.3, SD 0.6). KIMI was also preferred among Health Surveillance and Quarantine (mean 4.4, SD 0.5) and Medical Prevention (mean 4.5, SD 0.5) students. Nevertheless, students expressed concerns regarding potential academic inaccuracies, bias, and possible impact on independent thinking. Conclusions: This study suggested that recent LLMs, particularly KIMI and DeepSeek, may support integrating bioethics into undergraduate medical laboratory courses in a university in China. By assisting students in accessing information, reflecting on ethical issues, and navigating practical challenges, these tools can facilitate learning and foster ethical awareness, competent future physicians. These findings, as an initial exploration and context-specific, indicate that LLMs may support bioethics learning in undergraduate medical laboratory courses and help foster ethically aware, competent future physicians.
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.