MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406200047 · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2024.2445037

Artificial Intelligence in Health Professions Education assessment: AMEE Guide No. 178

2025· article· en· W4406200047 on OpenAlexaff
Ken Masters, Heather MacNeill, Jennifer Benjamin, Tamara E. Carver, Kataryna Nemethy, Sofia Valanci, David Taylor, Brent Thoma, Thomas Thesen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Teacher · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaBaycrest HospitalMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTUTORHealth professionsEngineering ethicsMedical educationFace (sociological concept)PsychologyComputer sciencePedagogyMedicinePolitical scienceEngineeringHealth careSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health Professions Education (HPE) assessment is being increasingly impacted by Artificial Intelligence (AI), and institutions, educators, and learners are grappling with AI's ever-evolving complexities, dangers, and potential. This AMEE Guide aims to assist all HPE stakeholders by helping them navigate the assessment uncertainty before them. Although the impetus is AI, the Guide grounds its path in pedagogical theory, considers the range of human responses, and then deals with assessment types, challenges, AI roles as tutor and learner, and required competencies. It then discusses the difficult and ethical issues, before ending with considerations for faculty development and the technicalities of AI acknowledgment in assessment. Through this Guide, we aim to allay fears in the face of change and demonstrate possibilities that will allow educators and learners to harness the full potential of AI in HPE assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.440 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical TeacherSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207