70/100

Moderate evidence

ProblemPublished recordHealthProblem Space

Large language models in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review of examination performance, knowledge acquisition, and learner perceptions

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2769raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
a68f1017925d…check it

BACKGROUND: Large language models (LLMs), particularly successive iterations of ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4), have demonstrated increasingly sophisticated performance on standardised medical assessments and are now widely accessible to undergraduate medical students worldwide. Although the evidence base has expanded rapidly since ChatGPT's public release in November 2022, findings remain fragmented across three largely distinct research domains: examination performance, knowledge acquisition, and learner percepti…

The problem

In a systematic review of 43 studies covering about 12,400 participants, 82% of medical students reported receiving no institutional guidance on using AI chatbots, and 61% raised academic integrity concerns.

What this doesn’t fix

Risk of bias was moderate-to-high in 86% of the included studies, and the learning gains were short-term only, without durable retention, so the benefit findings are tentative.

Sources

1 on file
  1. BMC Medical Educationdoi:10.1186/s12909-026-09999-7
    Peer-reviewed2026-07-30

Cite this record

v1

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2769, v1: “Large language models in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review of examination performance, knowledge acquisition, and learner perceptions.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2769 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 a68f1017925da344…

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. Publishedv1a68f1017925d…

    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-2026-2769 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.