Large language models improve clinical decision making of medical students through patient simulation and structured feedback: a randomized controlled trial.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH BMC Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-11-28 DOI:10.1186/s12909-024-06399-7
Emilia Brügge, Sarah Ricchizzi, Malin Arenbeck, Marius Niklas Keller, Lina Schur, Walter Stummer, Markus Holling, Max Hao Lu, Dogus Darici
{"title":"Large language models improve clinical decision making of medical students through patient simulation and structured feedback: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Emilia Brügge, Sarah Ricchizzi, Malin Arenbeck, Marius Niklas Keller, Lina Schur, Walter Stummer, Markus Holling, Max Hao Lu, Dogus Darici","doi":"10.1186/s12909-024-06399-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical decision-making (CDM) refers to physicians' ability to gather, evaluate, and interpret relevant diagnostic information. An integral component of CDM is the medical history conversation, traditionally practiced on real or simulated patients. In this study, we explored the potential of using Large Language Models (LLM) to simulate patient-doctor interactions and provide structured feedback.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed AI prompts to simulate patients with different symptoms, engaging in realistic medical history conversations. In our double-blind randomized design, the control group participated in simulated medical history conversations with AI patients (control group), while the intervention group, in addition to simulated conversations, also received AI-generated feedback on their performances (feedback group). We examined the influence of feedback based on their CDM performance, which was evaluated by two raters (ICC = 0.924) using the Clinical Reasoning Indicator - History Taking Inventory (CRI-HTI). The data was analyzed using an ANOVA for repeated measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our final sample included 21 medical students (age<sub>mean</sub> = 22.10 years, semester<sub>mean</sub> = 4, 14 females). At baseline, the feedback group (mean = 3.28 ± 0.09 [standard deviation]) and the control group (3.21 ± 0.08) achieved similar CRI-HTI scores, indicating successful randomization. After only four training sessions, the feedback group (3.60 ± 0.13) outperformed the control group (3.02 ± 0.12), F (1,18) = 4.44, p = .049 with a strong effect size, partial η<sup>2</sup> = 0.198. Specifically, the feedback group showed improvements in the subdomains of CDM of creating context (p = .046) and securing information (p = .018), while their ability to focus questions did not improve significantly (p = .265).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results suggest that AI-simulated medical history conversations can support CDM training, especially when combined with structured feedback. Such training format may serve as a cost-effective supplement to existing training methods, better preparing students for real medical history conversations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"24 1","pages":"1391"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11605890/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06399-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical decision-making (CDM) refers to physicians' ability to gather, evaluate, and interpret relevant diagnostic information. An integral component of CDM is the medical history conversation, traditionally practiced on real or simulated patients. In this study, we explored the potential of using Large Language Models (LLM) to simulate patient-doctor interactions and provide structured feedback.

Methods: We developed AI prompts to simulate patients with different symptoms, engaging in realistic medical history conversations. In our double-blind randomized design, the control group participated in simulated medical history conversations with AI patients (control group), while the intervention group, in addition to simulated conversations, also received AI-generated feedback on their performances (feedback group). We examined the influence of feedback based on their CDM performance, which was evaluated by two raters (ICC = 0.924) using the Clinical Reasoning Indicator - History Taking Inventory (CRI-HTI). The data was analyzed using an ANOVA for repeated measures.

Results: Our final sample included 21 medical students (agemean = 22.10 years, semestermean = 4, 14 females). At baseline, the feedback group (mean = 3.28 ± 0.09 [standard deviation]) and the control group (3.21 ± 0.08) achieved similar CRI-HTI scores, indicating successful randomization. After only four training sessions, the feedback group (3.60 ± 0.13) outperformed the control group (3.02 ± 0.12), F (1,18) = 4.44, p = .049 with a strong effect size, partial η2 = 0.198. Specifically, the feedback group showed improvements in the subdomains of CDM of creating context (p = .046) and securing information (p = .018), while their ability to focus questions did not improve significantly (p = .265).

Conclusion: The results suggest that AI-simulated medical history conversations can support CDM training, especially when combined with structured feedback. Such training format may serve as a cost-effective supplement to existing training methods, better preparing students for real medical history conversations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大型语言模型通过病人模拟和结构化反馈改善医学生的临床决策:一项随机对照试验。
背景:临床决策(CDM)是指医生收集、评估和解释相关诊断信息的能力。CDM的一个组成部分是病史对话,传统上是在真实或模拟患者身上进行的。在这项研究中,我们探索了使用大型语言模型(LLM)来模拟医患互动并提供结构化反馈的潜力。方法:我们开发了人工智能提示来模拟不同症状的患者,进行真实的病史对话。在我们的双盲随机设计中,对照组与人工智能患者进行模拟病史对话(对照组),而干预组除了模拟对话外,还接受人工智能对其表现的反馈(反馈组)。我们根据他们的CDM表现来检验反馈的影响,采用临床推理指标-历史调查量表(CRI-HTI)由两位评分者(ICC = 0.924)评估。对重复测量的数据进行方差分析。结果:最终样本包括21名医学生(平均年龄为22.10岁,学期平均为4,14名女性)。在基线时,反馈组(平均值= 3.28±0.09[标准差])与对照组(3.21±0.08)的CRI-HTI评分相近,表明随机化成功。仅4次训练后,反馈组(3.60±0.13)优于对照组(3.02±0.12),F (1,18) = 4.44, p =。049,效应量强,偏η2 = 0.198。具体来说,反馈组在CDM的创建上下文(p = 0.046)和保护信息(p = 0.018)的子域上有所改善,而他们关注问题的能力没有显著提高(p = 0.265)。结论:研究结果表明,人工智能模拟的病史对话可以支持CDM培训,特别是与结构化反馈相结合时。这种培训形式可以作为现有培训方法的一种经济有效的补充,使学生更好地为真实的病史对话做好准备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.
期刊最新文献
Cognitive alignment and assessment validity in a high-stakes dental specialty examination: a Bloom's taxonomy-based analysis. Impact of the Prehospital Cardiac Arrest Sonographic Assessment (CASA) Mini-Course on Knowledge and Simulation-Based Diagnostic Performance among Thai Paramedic Students. Nationwide assessment of burnout among medical undergraduates in Saudi Arabia using the Maslach Burnout Inventory. PROfessionalism in Partnership for Education Research (PROPER) study: a novel online initiative approach to professionalism education. Pedagogical impact of different levels of e-learning teaching during anesthesia residency: a randomized clinical trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1