MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417501608 · doi:10.1038/s43856-025-01283-x

Simulated patient systems powered by large language model-based AI agents offer potential for transforming medical education

2025· article· en· W4417501608 on OpenAlexaff
Huizi Yu, Jiayan Zhou, Lingyao Li, Shan Chen, Jack Gallifant, Jie Sun, Xiang Li, Jingxian He, Wenyue Hua, Mingyu Jin, Guang Chen, Yang Zhou, Zhao Li, Trisha Gupte, Ming‐Li Chen, Zahra Azizi, Qi Dou, Bryan P. Yan, Yanqiu Xing, Yongfeng Zhang, Themistocles L. Assimes, Danielle S. Bitterman, Xin Ma, Lin Lü, Lizhou Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNatural Science Foundation of Shandong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSimulated patientMedical simulationMedical servicesExpert systemVariety (cybernetics)Action (physics)Natural language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Simulated patient systems are vital in medical education and research, providing safe, integrative training environments and supporting clinical decision-making. Progressive Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, such as Large Language Models (LLM), could advance simulated patient systems by replicating medical conditions and patient-doctor interactions with high fidelity and low cost. However, effectiveness and trustworthiness remain challenging. METHODS: We developed AIPatient, a simulated patient system powered by LLM-based AI agents. The system incorporates the Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) framework, powered by six task-specific LLM-based AI agents for complex reasoning. For simulation reality, the system is also powered by the AIPatient KG (Knowledge Graph), built with de-identified real patient data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-III database. RESULTS: Here we show that the system's accuracy in Electronic Health Record (EHR)-based medical Question Answering (QA), readability, robustness, and stability. Specifically, the system achieves a QA accuracy of 94.15% when all six agents, surpassing benchmarks with partial or no agent integration. Its knowledgebase demonstrates high validity (F1 score=0.89). Readability scores show median Flesch Reading Ease at 68.77 and median Flesch Kincaid Grade at 6.4, indicating accessibility to all medical professionals. Robustness and stability are confirmed with non-significant variance (ANOVA F-value = 0.6126, p > 0.1; F-value = 0.782, p > 0.1). A user study with medical students shows that AIPatient delivers high fidelity, usability, and educational value, matching or exceeding human-simulated patients in history-taking. CONCLUSIONS: Large language model-based simulated patient systems provide accurate, readable, and reliable medical encounters and demonstrates potential to transform 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.390 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations21
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications MedicineSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207