Randomized controlled trial compares AI-enhanced and conventional training in medical students, suggesting potential benefits of AI.
Diagnostic disclosure is a complex communication task that requires learners to integrate interpersonal attunement, structured information delivery, and condition-specific reasoning in real time. We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing conventional diagnostic communication training with the same training supplemented by an AI-supported adaptive virtual patient simulation designed to provide additional deliberate practice and individualized, just-in-time feedback. Eighty undergraduate medical students were randomized 1:1 and completed standardized-patient encounters involving disclosure of a new diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus before and after training. Performance was assessed by blinded physician raters using an adapted Kalamazoo rubric. Among students with complete pre–post data (conventional training, n = 25; AI-supported training, n = 26), both groups showed substantial improvement. Mean gains were numerically larger in the AI-supported group, with small-to-moderate standardized effects across selected communication domains; however, baseline-adjusted group-by-time interactions did not reach conventional thresholds for statistical significance, indicating that any added mean effects beyond conventional training remain uncertain. Exploratory person-level analyses suggested greater heterogeneity of improvement in the AI-supported condition, including a higher density of large gains in higher-order communication components. These findings should therefore be interpreted as exploratory rather than confirmatory. AI-supported adaptive simulation appears feasible as an adjunct to communication training, but adequately powered studies are needed to clarify effect magnitude, mechanisms, and generalizability across training contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jay-Jímenez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: