BMC Medical Education (Nov 2024)

Large language models improve clinical decision making of medical students through patient simulation and structured feedback: a randomized controlled trial

  • Emilia Brügge,
  • Sarah Ricchizzi,
  • Malin Arenbeck,
  • Marius Niklas Keller,
  • Lina Schur,
  • Walter Stummer,
  • Markus Holling,
  • Max Hao Lu,
  • Dogus Darici

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06399-7
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Clinical decision-making (CDM) refers to physicians’ ability to gather, evaluate, and interpret relevant diagnostic information. An integral component of CDM is the medical history conversation, traditionally practiced on real or simulated patients. In this study, we explored the potential of using Large Language Models (LLM) to simulate patient-doctor interactions and provide structured feedback. Methods We developed AI prompts to simulate patients with different symptoms, engaging in realistic medical history conversations. In our double-blind randomized design, the control group participated in simulated medical history conversations with AI patients (control group), while the intervention group, in addition to simulated conversations, also received AI-generated feedback on their performances (feedback group). We examined the influence of feedback based on their CDM performance, which was evaluated by two raters (ICC = 0.924) using the Clinical Reasoning Indicator – History Taking Inventory (CRI-HTI). The data was analyzed using an ANOVA for repeated measures. Results Our final sample included 21 medical students (age mean = 22.10 years, semestermean = 4, 14 females). At baseline, the feedback group (mean = 3.28 ± 0.09 [standard deviation]) and the control group (3.21 ± 0.08) achieved similar CRI-HTI scores, indicating successful randomization. After only four training sessions, the feedback group (3.60 ± 0.13) outperformed the control group (3.02 ± 0.12), F (1,18) = 4.44, p = .049 with a strong effect size, partial η 2 = 0.198. Specifically, the feedback group showed improvements in the subdomains of CDM of creating context (p = .046) and securing information (p = .018), while their ability to focus questions did not improve significantly (p = .265). Conclusion The results suggest that AI-simulated medical history conversations can support CDM training, especially when combined with structured feedback. Such training format may serve as a cost-effective supplement to existing training methods, better preparing students for real medical history conversations.

Keywords