Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordHealthGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

The effectiveness of GAI-assisted teaching methods in medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2801raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
10a8705e504a…check it

Objective The study evaluated the effectiveness of generative artificial intelligence (GAI)-assisted teaching methods on the medical educational outcomes. Methods Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted for literature on AI-assisted educational interventions in medical education (e.g. clinical, nursing and dentistry medicine). PROSPERO registration number was CRD420251173150. Meta-analyses of the outcomes were performed using the Review Manager 5.4. Heterogeneity was evaluated using th…

The gain

A meta-analysis of 78 controlled studies (3,635 students taught with generative AI, 3,931 controls) found higher knowledge scores (SMD 0.95) and practical scores (SMD 1.48) than traditional teaching in clinical, nursing and dental education.

What this doesn’t fix

Results rest on highly heterogeneous studies, 51 of 78 from mainland China, and the authors found evidence of publication bias for the main knowledge and practical outcomes in Egger's test.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Frontiers in Public Healthdoi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1813108
    Peer-reviewed2026-04-22

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.

  • Medical students' analytical and problem-solving skills (continuous measures) with generative AI-assisted teaching versus control

    SMD 1.53 (95% CI 0.77 to 2.29)

    The review’s own words
    The results of the meta-analysis showed a significant improvement in analytical and problem-solving skills in the experimental group compared with the control group (SMD = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.77–2.29, p < 0.00001).

  • Medical students' knowledge examination scores with generative AI-assisted teaching versus control teaching

    SMD 0.95 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.18)

    57 studies

    The review’s own words
    Compared with the control group, the pooled effect of the studies (SMD = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.72-1.18, p < 0.00001) showed a significant improvement in knowledge scores in the GAI-assisted teaching group.

  • Medical students' learning initiative (continuous measures) with generative AI-assisted teaching versus control

    SMD 1.20 (95% CI 0.10 to 2.30)

    The review’s own words
    The results of the meta-analysis showed a significant improvement in learning initiative in the experimental group compared with the control group (SMD = 1.20, 95% CI: 0.10–2.30, p < 0.00001).

  • Medical students' teaching satisfaction (continuous measures) with generative AI-assisted teaching versus control

    SMD 1.52 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.02)

    The review’s own words
    The meta-analysis results showed a significant improvement in teaching satisfaction in the experimental group compared with the control group (SMD = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.01–2.02, p < 0.00001).

  • Medical students' critical thinking skills (continuous measures) with generative AI-assisted teaching versus control

    SMD 0.82 (95% CI −0.97 to 2.61)

    The review’s own words
    The results of the meta-analysis showed no difference in critical thinking skills between the two groups (SMD = 0.82, 95% CI: −0.97–2.61, p = 0.37).

  • Medical students' practical examination scores with generative AI-assisted teaching versus control teaching

    SMD 1.48 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.77)

    50 studies

    The review’s own words
    Compared with the control group, the pooled effect of the studies (SMD = 1.48, 95%CI: 1.20–1.77, p < 0.00001) showed a significant improving effect on experimental skills scores in the group of GAI-assisted experiment teaching group.

  • Medical students' learning self-efficacy with generative AI-assisted teaching versus control

    SMD 0.75 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.32)

    The review’s own words
    The results of the meta-analysis showed a significant improvement in learning self-efficacy in the experimental group compared with the control group (SMD = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.17–1.32, p < 0.00001).

  • Medical students' teaching satisfaction (dichotomous measures) with generative AI-assisted teaching versus control

    Odds ratio 5.58 (95% CI 4.27 to 7.28)

    23 studies

    The review’s own words
    Furthermore, studies using dichotomous variables revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups (OR = 5.58, 95% CI: 4.27–7.28, p < 0.0001).

  • Medical students' self-directed learning ability (continuous measures) with generative AI-assisted teaching versus control

    SMD 1.25 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.69)

    The review’s own words
    The results of the meta-analysis showed a significant improvement in self-directed learning ability in the experimental group compared with the control group (SMD = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.81–1.69, p < 0.00001).

  • Medical students' clinical thinking ability (continuous measures) with generative AI-assisted teaching versus control

    SMD 1.18 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.50)

    The review’s own words
    The results of the meta-analysis showed a significant improvement in clinical thinking ability in the experimental group compared with the control group (SMD = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.86–1.50, p < 0.00001).

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-2026-2801, v1: “The effectiveness of GAI-assisted teaching methods in medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2801 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 10a8705e504a8660…

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. Publishedv110a8705e504a…

    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-2026-2801 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.