ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Generative artificial intelligence in medical education: from knowledge assessment to clinical reasoning and professional competence.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly large language models (LLMs), is poised to fundamentally transform medical education. Based on a structured literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, this review synthesizes current evidence on the applications, capabilities, and limitations of GenAI across the medical training continuum. Advanced LLMs demonstrate a formidable command of medical knowledge, consistently achieving passing scores on standardized licensing examinations, with GPT-4 and domain-specific models like Ortho GPT showing particular proficiency. As versatile teaching tools, these models can generate high-quality assessment materials, provide personalized on-demand tutoring, and power interactive virtual patients for clinical reasoning practice. However, this potential is tempered by significant challenges, including a propensity for "hallucinations," embedded biases that can perpetuate health inequities, linguistic performance disparities, and a fundamental gap in flexible, adaptive clinical reasoning. Integration also raises critical concerns regarding academic integrity, potential over-reliance leading to deskilling, and data privacy. Responsible adoption requires a structured approach encompassing the development of tiered AI competency frameworks, blended curricular integration, dedicated faculty development, and a rigorous research agenda focused on longitudinal learning outcomes. Ultimately, GenAI should be viewed as a powerful augmentative tool, not a replacement for human educators. Its successful integration will depend on leveraging its strengths to enhance efficiency and scalability while preserving the essential humanistic elements of medical practice through expert oversight and validation.
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.