Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordEducationGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

Effectiveness of AI-assisted medical education for Chinese undergraduate medical students: a meta-analysis

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2833raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
0d5951da9200…check it

BACKGROUND: In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has been adopted as an innovative teaching method. However, no studies have comprehensively evaluated the effectiveness of AI in the context of medical education in China. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of AI-assisted teaching methods versus traditional teaching methods regarding their impact on medical education outcomes in China. METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines…

The gain

A meta-analysis of 12 studies with 824 Chinese undergraduate medical students found AI-assisted teaching raised exam scores over traditional teaching (SMD 2.06) and made students about 5.8 times more likely to report satisfaction.

What this doesn’t fix

Only 12 studies with 824 students were pooled (individual studies had 18 to 120 students), and small studies can overstate effects; most did not report blinding or allocation concealment, and satisfaction relied on non-standardized questionnaires.

Sources

1 on file
  1. BMC Medical Educationdoi:10.1186/s12909-025-07770-y
    Peer-reviewed2025-08-27

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.

  • Examination scores in short-term AI-assisted teaching studies (12 weeks or less)

    SMD 1.68 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.97)

    search to December 2024

    The review’s own words
    Additionally, the pooled analysis revealed that AI-assisted teaching significantly increased examination scores in the fixed-effects model in the long-term group (SMD = 3.27, 95% CI [2.84, 3.71], P < 0.00001) and short-term group (SMD = 1.68, 95% CI [1.40, 1.97], P < 0.00001).

  • Examination scores in long-term AI-assisted teaching studies (over 12 weeks)

    SMD 3.27 (95% CI 2.84 to 3.71)

    5 studies · search to December 2024

    The review’s own words
    Additionally, the pooled analysis revealed that AI-assisted teaching significantly increased examination scores in the fixed-effects model in the long-term group (SMD = 3.27, 95% CI [2.84, 3.71], P < 0.00001) and short-term group (SMD = 1.68, 95% CI [1.40, 1.97], P < 0.00001).

  • Examination scores with AI adaptive learning systems versus traditional teaching

    SMD 3.35 (95% CI 2.85 to 3.85)

    search to December 2024

    The review’s own words
    Additionally, a pooled analysis revealed that AI-assisted teaching significantly increased examination scores in the fixed-effects model in the AI-assisted diagnosis system group (SMD = 1.68, 95% CI [1.40, 1.97], P < 0.00001) and the AI adaptive learning system group (SMD = 3.35, 95% CI [2.85, 3.85], P < 0.00001).

  • Satisfaction of Chinese undergraduate medical students with AI-assisted versus traditional teaching

    Odds ratio 5.80 (95% CI 3.30 to 10.18)

    599 people · search to December 2024

    The review’s own words
    All studies indicated that AI-assisted teaching significantly increased student satisfaction (OR = 5.80, 95% CI [3.30, 10.18], P < 0.00001) compared with traditional teaching (Fig. 4 ).

  • Examination scores of Chinese undergraduate medical students with AI-assisted versus traditional teaching

    SMD 2.06 (95% CI 1.35 to 2.76)

    824 people · search to December 2024

    The review’s own words
    The pooled data from the forest plots revealed that compared with traditional teaching, AI-assisted teaching significantly increased students’ examination scores (SMD = 2.06, 95% CI [1.35, 2.76], P < 0.00001) (Fig. 3 ).

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-2026-2833, v1: “Effectiveness of AI-assisted medical education for Chinese undergraduate medical students: a meta-analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2833 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 0d5951da9200464c…

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. Publishedv10d5951da9200…

    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-2026-2833 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.