Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Nov 11;12(22):2241.
doi: 10.3390/healthcare12222241.

Enhancing Clinical Reasoning with Virtual Patients: A Hybrid Systematic Review Combining Human Reviewers and ChatGPT

Daniel García-Torres  1 , María Asunción Vicente Ripoll  2 , César Fernández Peris  2 , José Joaquín Mira Solves  1   3   4
Affiliations
Review

Enhancing Clinical Reasoning with Virtual Patients: A Hybrid Systematic Review Combining Human Reviewers and ChatGPT

Daniel García-Torres et al. Healthcare (Basel). .

Abstract

Objectives: This study presents a systematic review aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of virtual patients in enhancing clinical reasoning skills in medical education. A hybrid methodology was used, combining human reviewers and ChatGPT to assess the impact of conversational virtual patients on student learning outcomes and satisfaction.

Methods: Various studies involving conversational virtual patients were analyzed to determine the effect of these digital tools on clinical competencies. The hybrid review process incorporated both human assessments and AI-driven reviews, allowing a comparison of accuracy between the two approaches.

Results: Consistent with previous systematic reviews, our findings suggest that conversational virtual patients can improve clinical competencies, particularly in history-taking and clinical reasoning. Regarding student feedback, satisfaction tends to be higher when virtual patients' interactions are more realistic, often due to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP) in the simulators. Furthermore, the study compares the accuracy of AI-driven reviews with human assessments, revealing comparable results.

Conclusions: This research highlights AI's potential to complement human expertise in academic evaluations, contributing to more efficient and consistent systematic reviews in rapidly evolving educational fields.

Keywords: ChatGPT; clinical reasoning; medical education; virtual patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of the studies through the revision process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Percentage of Correct Responses (i.e., most voted responses) by Evaluator.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Accuracy of Human Reviewers and AI Models in Identifying Key Categories.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Technological trend analysis in papers related to virtual patients or virtual standardized patients. Each * represents a publication where the searched term appears. A jitter effect has been added to improve visualization.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Schulman J., Zoph B., Kim C. Introducing ChatGPT. 2022. [(accessed on 29 October 2024)]. Available online: https://openai.com/index/chatgpt.
    1. Syriani E., David I., Kumar G. Assessing the ability of ChatGPT to screen articles for systematic reviews. arXiv. 20232307.06464
    1. Qureshi R., Shaughnessy D., Gill K.A., Robinson K.A., Li T., Agai E. Are ChatGPT and large language models “the answer” to bringing us closer to systematic review automation? Syst. Rev. 2023;12:72. doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02243-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Epstein R.M., Hundert E.M. Defining and Assessing Professional Competence. JAMA. 2002;287:226. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.2.226. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mamede S., Schmidt H.G. The structure of reflective practice in medicine. Med. Educ. 2004;38:1302–1308. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01917.x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources