Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordHealthGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

EP 254 ChatGTP in Undergraduate Medical Education- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2768raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
2ddd4dbcd5e0…check it

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly embedded Gen-Z, with ChatGPT emerging as an educational tool. Its application has expanded rapidly across disciplines, including medical education, where it is widely used. Robust evidence synthesising its effectiveness in undergraduate medical education is still evolving. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of ChatGPT-assisted teaching compared with traditional educational methods in undergraduate medical students. Materials and Methods A syst…

The gain

A meta-analysis of six randomised trials with 361 undergraduate medical students found ChatGPT-assisted teaching produced assessment scores 6.21 points higher than traditional teaching (95% CI 2.03–10.39).

What this doesn’t fix

Heterogeneity across the six trials was very high (I² = 98%) and potential publication bias was noted, so the authors say results need cautious interpretation.

Sources

1 on file
  1. British Journal of Surgerydoi:10.1093/bjs/znag087.567
    Peer-reviewed2026-08-01

What the review found when it combined the studies

These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.

  • Assessment scores of undergraduate medical students taught with ChatGPT assistance versus traditional teaching

    Mean difference 6.21 (95% CI 2.03 to 10.39)

    361 people · search to 25th September 2025

    The review’s own words
    ChatGPT-assisted learning was associated with significantly higher assessment scores, with a pooled mean difference of 6.21 points in favour of ChatGPT (95% CI 2.03–10.39, p = 0.004).

Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results

Cite this record

v1

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2768, v1: “EP 254 ChatGTP in Undergraduate Medical Education- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2768 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 2ddd4dbcd5e005cb…

Change history

1 version

Every change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.

  1. Publishedv12ddd4dbcd5e0…

    Certified into the record

Check this record hasn’t been altered

Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page

Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2768 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.