aceMedical students' appraisal of curated AI answers in a cardiovascular system course
Study objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate medical student perspective of AI-curated responses through qualitative feedback and assessment of accuracy and helpfulness. Design: First, students submitted questions about course content. Next, these questions were inputted into OpenEvidence. Finally, generated responses were edited by investigators and evaluated by students and faculty. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of this study was the accuracy, helpfulness, and qualitative feedback for…
Students generally rated AI-curated answers to their own cardiovascular course questions as helpful.
Students had difficulty grading the accuracy of the AI answers, which were also seen as overly detailed and lacking visual explanations.
Responses were edited by investigators before evaluation, and the summary gives no quantitative results, so the findings may not reflect unedited AI output or measured accuracy.
Evidence
- Peer-reviewedAmerican Heart Journal Plus: Cardiology Research and Practice2026-09-30
How should this claim be treated?
Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-1503, v1: “Medical students' appraisal of curated AI answers in a cardiovascular system course.” Truvace, 2026-10-15. /record/TRV-2026-1503 (accessed at citation time). sha256 3cadd0365ef2c7a2…
Calibration history
Every change to this record since certification, in the open. None yet — the reading has held since it entered the record.
Certified into the record
How to verify without trusting this page
Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-1503 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.