MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407545831 · doi:10.2196/65670

Development of a GPT-4–Powered Virtual Simulated Patient and Communication Training Platform for Medical Students to Practice Discussing Abnormal Mammogram Results With Patients: Multiphase Study

2025· article· en· W4407545831 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dan Weisman, Alanna Sugarman, Yue Huang, Lillian Gelberg, Patricia A. Ganz, W. Scott Comulada

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJonsson Comprehensive Cancer CenterNational Cancer InstituteUniversity of California, Los AngelesBreast Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsPreprintMedical educationMultimediaTraining (meteorology)Computer scienceMedical physicsPsychologyMedicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Standardized patients (SPs) prepare medical students for difficult conversations with patients. Despite their value, SP-based simulation training is constrained by available resources and competing clinical demands. Researchers are turning to artificial intelligence and large language models, such as generative pretrained transformers, to create communication training that incorporates virtual simulated patients (VSPs). GPT-4 is a large language model advance allowing developers to design virtual simulation scenarios using text-based prompts instead of relying on branching path simulations with prescripted dialogue. These nascent developmental practices have not taken root in the literature to guide other researchers in developing their own simulations. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe our developmental process and lessons learned for creating a GPT-4-driven VSP. We designed the VSP to help medical student learners rehearse discussing abnormal mammography results with a patient as a primary care physician (PCP). We aimed to assess GPT-4's ability to generate appropriate VSP responses to learners during spoken conversations and provide appropriate feedback on learner performance. METHODS: A research team comprised of physicians, a medical student, an educator, an SP program director, a learning experience designer, and a health care researcher conducted the study. A formative phase with in-depth knowledge user interviews informed development, followed by a development phase to create the virtual training module. The team conducted interviews with 5 medical students, 5 PCPs, and 5 breast cancer survivors. They then developed a VSP using simulation authoring software and provided the GPT-4-enabled VSP with an initial prompt consisting of a scenario description, emotional state, and expectations for learner dialogue. It was iteratively refined through an agile design process involving repeated cycles of testing, documenting issues, and revising the prompt. As an exploratory feature, the simulation used GPT-4 to provide written feedback to learners about their performance communicating with the VSP and their adherence to guidelines for difficult conversations. RESULTS: In-depth interviews helped establish the appropriate timing, mode of communication, and protocol for conversations between PCPs and patients during the breast cancer screening process. The scenario simulated a telephone call between a physician and patient to discuss the abnormal results of a diagnostic mammogram that that indicated a need for a biopsy. Preliminary testing was promising. The VSP asked sensible questions about their mammography results and responded to learner inquiries using a voice replete with appropriate emotional inflections. GPT-4 generated performance feedback that successfully identified strengths and areas for improvement using relevant quotes from the learner-VSP conversation, but it occasionally misidentified learner adherence to communication protocols. CONCLUSIONS: GPT-4 streamlined development and facilitated more dynamic, humanlike interactions between learners and the VSP compared to branching path simulations. For the next steps, we will pilot-test the VSP with medical students to evaluate its feasibility and acceptability.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.428 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations26
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207