Enhancing Medical Interview Skills Through AI-Simulated Patient Interactions: Nonrandomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical interviewing is a critical skill in clinical practice, yet opportunities for practical training are limited in Japanese medical schools, necessitating urgent measures. Given advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) technology, its application in the medical field is expanding. However, reports on its application in medical interviews in medical education are scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether medical students' interview skills could be improved by engaging with AI-simulated patients using large language models, including the provision of feedback. METHODS: This nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted with fourth-year medical students in Japan. A simulation program using large language models was provided to 35 students in the intervention group in 2023, while 110 students from 2022 who did not participate in the intervention were selected as the control group. The primary outcome was the score on the Pre-Clinical Clerkship Objective Structured Clinical Examination (pre-CC OSCE), a national standardized clinical skills examination, in medical interviewing. Secondary outcomes included surveys such as the Simulation-Based Training Quality Assurance Tool (SBT-QA10), administered at the start and end of the study. RESULTS: The AI intervention group showed significantly higher scores on medical interviews than the control group (AI group vs control group: mean 28.1, SD 1.6 vs 27.1, SD 2.2; P=.01). There was a trend of inverse correlation between the SBT-QA10 and pre-CC OSCE scores (regression coefficient -2.0 to -2.1). No significant safety concerns were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Education through medical interviews using AI-simulated patients has demonstrated safety and a certain level of educational effectiveness. However, at present, the educational effects of this platform on nonverbal communication skills are limited, suggesting that it should be used as a supplementary tool to traditional simulation education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".