GenAI does not significantly improve clinical skills of clinical medicine students compared with traditional teaching¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Pooled analysis of 9 studies found no statistically significant difference in clinical skills between GenAI and traditional teaching for clinical medicine students (SMD = 0.27, 95%CI -0.13 to 0.66, P = 0.18, I² = 88%). → Xie Guanli 2026
Evidence¶
Xie Guanli 2026¶
Xie Guanli, Liao Jianglong, Tang Xiaoxia, Fu Han, Liu Duo, Deng Li, Wang Tao, Hong Xin. (2026). The impact of generative artificial intelligence on clinical skills and knowledge acquisition in medical undergraduates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09458-3
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Meta-analysis of 9 controlled studies (n = 726 clinical medicine students) pooling clinical skills assessments. The article reports no statistically significant difference with SMD = 0.27 and I² = 88%.
"the updated pooled analysis showed no statistically significant difference between GenAI and traditional teaching methods (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.66; P = 0.18; I² = 88%; 9 studies, n = 726, random-effects model)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Nursing students show significant, homogeneous clinical skills benefit from GenAI (SMD = 0.98), and the overall clinical-skills effect differs between majors — related
- GenAI significantly improves academic writing scores for both clinical medicine and nursing students — related
- Nursing students show significant knowledge improvement with GenAI (SMD = 1.11) unlike clinical medicine students — related
- GenAI does not significantly improve knowledge exam scores of clinical medicine students compared with traditional teaching, with high heterogeneity — related
- GAI-assisted teaching significantly improves clinical thinking ability compared with traditional teaching (SMD = 1.18; OR = 10.97) — related
- Single studies drive the null findings for knowledge and clinical skills: removing Bhatia 2024 or Briones-Zamora 2026 restores significance — reports the opposite
- GAI-based teaching and traditional teaching produce comparable knowledge acquisition scores in medical students — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.