MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409155725 · doi:10.2196/65726

Using a Hybrid of AI and Template-Based Method in Automatic Item Generation to Create Multiple-Choice Questions in Medical Education: Hybrid AIG

2025· article· en· W4409155725 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSummative assessmentFormative assessmentField (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceTemplateSubject-matter expertMachine learningExpert systemProgramming languagePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Template-based automatic item generation (AIG) is more efficient than traditional item writing but it still heavily relies on expert effort in model development. While nontemplate-based AIG, leveraging artificial intelligence (AI), offers efficiency, it faces accuracy challenges. Medical education, a field that relies heavily on both formative and summative assessments with multiple choice questions, is in dire need of AI-based support for the efficient automatic generation of items. Objective: We aimed to propose a hybrid AIG to demonstrate whether it is possible to generate item templates using AI in the field of medical education. Methods: This is a mixed-methods methodological study with proof-of-concept elements. We propose the hybrid AIG method as a structured series of interactions between a human subject matter expert and AI, designed as a collaborative authoring effort. The method leverages AI to generate item models (templates) and cognitive models to combine the advantages of the two AIG approaches. To demonstrate how to create item models using hybrid AIG, we used 2 medical multiple-choice questions: one on respiratory infections in adults and another on acute allergic reactions in the pediatric population. Results: The hybrid AIG method we propose consists of 7 steps. The first 5 steps are performed by an expert in a customized AI environment. These involve providing a parent item, identifying elements for manipulation, selecting options and assigning values to elements, and generating the cognitive model. After a final expert review (Step 6), the content in the template can be used for item generation through a traditional (non-AI) software (Step 7). We showed that AI is capable of generating item templates for AIG under the control of a human expert in only 10 minutes. Leveraging AI in template development made it less challenging. Conclusions: The hybrid AIG method transcends the traditional template-based approach by marrying the "art" that comes from AI as a "black box" with the "science" of algorithmic generation under the oversight of expert as a "marriage registrar". It does not only capitalize on the strengths of both approaches but also mitigates their weaknesses, offering a human-AI collaboration to increase efficiency in medical 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.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.259
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.259
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.517
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.113 · 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