aceModerate evidence
Published recordHealthGood Space
More
The impact of integrating generative artificial intelligence into medical education on short-term learning outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2794raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- 721fc1cbdf01…check it
BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technologies —exemplified by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek—have attracted substantial interest in medical education for their capacity to generate content, adapt to individual learners, and support interactive dialogue. Whether these technologies produce measurable improvements in educational outcomes remains uncertain, and this evidence gap has constrained broader adoption. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of…
The gain
A meta-analysis of 20 randomized trials (1,413 medical students, interns and residents) found clinical skill scores were higher with generative AI-assisted teaching than with traditional or non-AI digital teaching (SMD 1.09, moderate certainty).
What this doesn’t fix
Certainty is low to moderate owing to high heterogeneity, risk of bias and lack of blinding, and only four studies assessed follow-up, which limits confidence in how long gains last.
Sources
1 on file- BMC Medical Educationdoi:10.1186/s12909-026-09320-6
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.
Knowledge retention at follow-up in medical learners taught with generative AI versus control teaching
SMD 0.51 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.78)
4 studies · search to February 2026
The review’s own words
At follow-up, knowledge retention remained significant (SMD = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.24–0.78, P = 0.010; k = 4; I2 = 0%; GRADE: moderate certainty)
Post-intervention knowledge scores in medical learners taught with generative AI versus control teaching
SMD 0.99 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.49)
11 studies · search to February 2026
The review’s own words
Post-intervention knowledge scores were higher in GenAI groups (SMD = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.49–1.49, P = 0.001; k = 11; I2 = 86.7%; GRADE: low certainty)
Clinical skill scores in medical learners taught with generative AI versus control teaching
SMD 1.09 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.38)
8 studies · search to February 2026
The review’s own words
clinical skill scores (SMD = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.81–1.38, P < 0.001; k = 8; I2 = 41.0%; GRADE: moderate certainty)
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
v1Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2794, v1: “The impact of integrating generative artificial intelligence into medical education on short-term learning outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2794 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 721fc1cbdf013194…
Change history
1 versionEvery change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.
Certified into the record
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page
Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2794 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.