MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417276784 · doi:10.63564/jnep.v15n12p29

Evaluating a zero-shot GenAI assistant for clinical record writing in nursing education

2025· article· W4417276784 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asahiko Higashitsuji, Tomoko Otsuka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentPracticumNurse educationReliability (semiconductor)Scale (ratio)Nursing Outcomes ClassificationSummative assessmentClinical judgment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study pilot-tested a zero-shot prompting approach for generating pedagogically appropriate AI feedback to support nursing students’ reflective record writing. A generative AI system was developed using GPT-4o, with prompts carefully designed to align with ethical, instructional, and contextual principles relevant to clinical practicum education. Following the ADDIE framework, this evaluation examined the feasibility and instructional applicability of the AI-generated feedback rather than aiming to establish generalizable effects. Methods: Three nursing faculty members independently reviewed 126 AI-generated responses using a 5-point scale based on clarity, relevance, and educational appropriateness. Items scoring less than 5 were revised, and a second round of evaluation was conducted. Results: The proportion of responses rated 5 increased from 69% to 96% after prompt refinement, confirming that even minor adjustments—such as clarifying vague instructions or reinforcing ethical boundaries—had a measurable impact. Inter-rater reliability was moderate, reflecting diverse faculty perspectives—a feature aligned with the contextual complexity of nursing education. The conservative scoring approach, in which the lowest score was adopted per item, ensured that potential pedagogical risks were not overlooked. Conclusions: These findings suggest that zero-shot prompting offers a practical and scalable method for aligning generative AI systems with educational goals, even without training data or programming expertise. Rather than positioning AI as a replacement for instructors, this study frames GenAI as a formative support tool shaped by educator input. The study is limited by its use of simulated student inputs and a small, single-institution faculty sample; therefore, future work should assess implementation with real students to examine usability, personalization, and effectiveness in authentic practicum environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.153
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.153
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.651
GPT teacher head0.702
Teacher spread0.051 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education→French-language works237,207→