The exact text we saved

This is the version exactly as it was saved, character for character. The SHA-256 hash below is a 64-character code worked out from that text. Run the same text through SHA-256 and you get the same code; change a single letter and the code comes out completely different. Each version also stores the previous version’s hash, which chains them together so no version can be swapped out quietly.

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-2768
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-11-12T17:21:03.107688Z
status: published
lens: g_space
sector: health
headline: EP 254 ChatGTP in Undergraduate Medical Education- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
dek: 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…
gain_title: 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).
problem_title: (none)
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: 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).
gain_evidence: pooled mean difference of 6.21 points in favour of ChatGPT (95% CI 2.03–10.39, p = 0.004) | ChatGPT-assisted learning was associated with significantly higher assessment scores
problem_reading: (none)
problem_evidence: (none)
quick_read: A systematic review and meta-analysis pooled six randomised controlled trials comparing ChatGPT-assisted teaching with traditional classroom and bedside teaching. Together the trials covered 361 undergraduate medical students, 182 taught with ChatGPT and 179 taught traditionally. Students in the ChatGPT groups scored a pooled 6.21 points higher on assessments (95% CI 2.03–10.39, p = 0.004).

The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and searched PubMed, Embase, Ovid full-text journals and the Cochrane Library up to 25 September 2025. Because it draws only on randomised trials, it offers a direct comparison of the two teaching methods in medical education, where ChatGPT is already widely used.

The results varied widely between trials (I² = 98%), and the authors flag potential publication bias. They say the findings need cautious interpretation and call for further high-quality trials to establish how ChatGPT teaching is best put into practice.
limitation: Heterogeneity across the six trials was very high (I² = 98%) and potential publication bias was noted, so the authors say results need cautious interpretation.
tag: Evidence-backed gain
key_points: Six randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, covering 361 undergraduate medical students. | 182 students were taught with ChatGPT and 179 with traditional classroom and bedside teaching. | The pooled mean difference was 6.21 points in favour of ChatGPT (95% CI 2.03–10.39, p = 0.004). | Heterogeneity between trials was substantial (I² = 98%). | The authors cite potential publication bias and call for further high-quality trials to define optimal implementation.
rundown: The review was conducted under PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches of PubMed, Embase, Ovid full-text journals and the Cochrane Library used the terms 'ChatGPT' and 'medical education' in titles and abstracts, running until 25 September 2025.

Only randomised controlled trials in undergraduate medical students were included. The intervention was ChatGPT-assisted teaching and the comparator was traditional classroom and bedside teaching. Analysis used RevMan 5.0 with a random-effects model.

Six trials qualified, and the pooled assessment-score difference favoured ChatGPT by 6.21 points. An I² of 98% means the trials differed markedly from one another, so the pooled figure may not describe any single teaching setting. The authors say further high-quality trials are required to define how ChatGPT should be used in teaching.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | British Journal of Surgery | https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znag087.567 | 2026-08-01
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

SHA-256 hash

2ddd4dbcd5e005cb78afb82a30297111ff2514dc3af85358b8533fb92ecad1b6

Previous version’s hash

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000