Feasibility of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Large AI-Based Linguistic Models for Clinical Reasoning Training of Physical Therapy Students: Pilot Randomized Parallel-Group Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Clinical reasoning is a critical skill for physical therapists, involving the collection and interpretation of patient information to form accurate diagnoses. Traditional training often lacks the diversity of clinical cases necessary for students to develop these skills comprehensively. Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 have the potential to simulate a wide range of clinical scenarios, offering a novel approach to enhance clinical reasoning in physical therapy education. Objective: The aim of the study is to explore the main barriers and facilitators that could be encountered in conducting a randomized clinical trial to study the effectiveness of the implementation of LLM models as tools to work on the clinical reasoning of physical therapy students. Methods: This pilot randomized parallel-group study involved 46 third-year physical therapy students at La Salle Centre for Higher University Studies. Participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental group, which received LLM training, or the control group, which followed the usual curriculum. The intervention lasted for 4 weeks, during which the experimental group used LLM to solve weekly clinical cases. Digital competencies, satisfaction, and costs were evaluated to explore the feasibility of this intervention. Results: The recruitment and participation rates were high, but active engagement with the LLM was low, with only 5.75% (5/23) of the experimental group actively using the model. No significant difference in overall satisfaction was found between the groups, and the cost analysis reflected an initial cost of US $1738 for completing the study. Conclusions: While LLMs have the potential to enhance specific digital competencies in physical therapy students, their practical integration into the curriculum faces challenges. Future studies should focus on improving student engagement with LLMs and extending the training period to determine the feasibility of integrating this tool into physical therapy education and maximize benefits.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".