Understanding the Role of Large Language Model Virtual Patients in Developing Communication and Clinical Skills in Undergraduate Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to practice opportunities for history-taking in undergraduate medical education can be resource-limited. Large language models are a potential avenue to address this. This study sought to characterize changes in learner self-reported confidence with history-taking before and after a simulation with an LLM-based patient and understand learner experience with and the acceptability of virtual LLM-based patients. This was a multi-method study conducted at McMaster University. Simulations were facilitated with the OSCEai tool. Data was collected through surveys with a Likert scale and open-ended questions and semi-structured interviews. A total of 24 participants generated 93 survey responses and 17 interviews. Overall, participants reported a 14.6% increase in comfort with history-taking. Strengths included its flexibility, accessibility, detailed feedback, and ability to provide a judgement-free space to practice. Limitations included its lower fidelity compared to standardized patients and at times repetitive and less clinically relevant feedback as compared to preceptors. It was overall viewed best as a supplement rather than a replacement for standardized patients. In conclusion, LLM-based virtual patients were feasible and valued as an adjunct tool. They can support scalable, personalized practice. Future work is needed to understand objective metrics of improvement and to design curricular strategies for integration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".