Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT07714655

Intelligent Simulated Patient System for Gastroenterology Education

This randomized controlled trial evaluated a large language model-based Intelligent Simulated Patient System (ISPS) for gastroenterology history-taking education. Ninety medical students were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 4 weeks of conventional clinical learning or ISPS-assisted training.

The ISPS used teacher-defined structured case information to support simulated patient interactions and generated item-level formative feedback using predefined scoring rubrics. The implemented system did not use external electronic health record retrieval, retrieval-augmented generation, a vector database, or semantic-similarity threshold scoring.

The primary outcomes were post-intervention medical history-taking performance and clinical diagnostic accuracy. History-taking performance was assessed in a standardized Objective Structured Clinical Examination by two senior physicians who were blinded to group allocation. Secondary outcomes included patient-centered communication competence and participants' acceptance of the ISPS.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

About this study

Background and Objective

The Intelligent Simulated Patient System (ISPS) was developed to provide repeatable history-taking practice, automated formative assessment, and structured feedback for medical students learning gastroenterology. The study evaluated the reliability of the automated history-taking scoring system and the educational effectiveness of ISPS-assisted training.

ISPS Intervention

Teachers configured structured disease templates, patient-specific case information, examination tasks, scoring items, and reference diagnoses within the system. Students conducted multiround history-taking interviews with large language model-driven simulated patients. The simulated patients were instructed to respond only according to the teacher-defined patient information.

After each training encounter, the ISPS evaluated history-taking completeness item by item against a predefined 100-point Medical History-Taking Assessment (MHTA) rubric and generated formative feedback. Patient-centered communication was assessed separately in four domains: exploring the patient's ideas, exploring the patient's concerns, exploring the impact of illness, and expressing understanding and support.

All case information and scoring criteria used in the evaluated version were configured by teachers and provided directly to the model as structured prompt context. The system did not use external electronic health record retrieval, retrieval-augmented generation, a separate vector database, knowledge-graph retrieval, instruction fine-tuning, SBERT-based semantic-similarity threshold scoring, or rule-tree coverage scoring.

Automated Scoring Validation

Before evaluation of the educational intervention, the automated history-taking scoring system was assessed using 50 complete interview records. The ISPS scored each record using the predefined MHTA rubric. Two senior clinical educators independently scored the same records using the identical rubric and were blinded to the ISPS-generated scores and to each other's ratings. Agreement between ISPS-generated scores and the mean expert scores was evaluated using Pearson correlation, the intra-class correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis.

Randomized Controlled Trial

Ninety eligible medical students who had completed the relevant theoretical and clinical instruction provided written informed consent and were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention or control group.

Participants in the control group received 4 weeks of conventional clinical learning, including teaching rounds, case-based discussions, paper medical records, bedside interviews, and verbal feedback from senior physicians. Participants in the intervention group independently practiced gastroenterology history taking using the ISPS. After each training encounter, the system provided a formative MHTA score and item-level feedback. These training scores were used for formative learning and were not used as the primary post-intervention outcome.

Outcome Assessment

The primary outcomes were post-intervention MHTA score and clinical diagnostic accuracy. History-taking performance was evaluated independently of the ISPS training platform in a standardized Objective Structured Clinical Examination. Each participant interviewed a trained human standardized patient, and two senior physicians who were blinded to group allocation independently rated the participant using the 100-point MHTA rubric. The mean of the two physician ratings was used as the final MHTA score. Clinical diagnostic accuracy was determined by whether the participant's first diagnosis matched the predefined reference diagnosis for the examination case.

Secondary outcomes included patient-centered communication competence and satisfaction with and acceptance of the ISPS. Communication competence was assessed using a four-domain scale based on the Understanding the Patient's Perspective domain of the SEGUE framework. Each domain was scored from 1 to 5, producing a total score ranging from 4 to 20. Participants in the intervention group completed a Technology Acceptance Model questionnaire after the intervention.

Registration Information

Participant enrollment and follow-up had been completed before this study record was first submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. The record was subsequently revised to ensure that the intervention description and outcome measures accurately reflected the study as conducted. Previous versions remain available in the ClinicalTrials.gov Record History.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Undergraduate medical students at Zhejiang Chinese Medical University who had completed their clinical clerkship and the required coursework in Diagnostics and Internal Medicine (Gastroenterology).
  • Postgraduate students in Clinical Medicine at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine).
  • Able and willing to provide written informed consent.
  • Willing to complete the entire 4-week study protocol and all outcome assessments.

Exclusion criteria

  • Individuals with extensive prior clinical experience in gastroenterology that could substantially influence baseline performance.
  • Individuals with severe visual, hearing, or other impairments that would prevent effective participation in the Intelligent Simulated Patient System training.
  • Individuals unable to complete the required training sessions or the final Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE).
  • Individuals who withdrew informed consent or had incomplete outcome assessment.

Treatment and study plan

Intelligent Simulated Patient System (ISPS)

Other

Participants received 4 weeks of self-directed gastroenterology history-taking training using the Intelligent Simulated Patient System (ISPS). Participants selected teacher-configured clinical cases and conducted multiround history-taking interviews with large language model-driven simulated patients. Simulated-patient responses were constrained by teacher-defined structured patient information.

After each training encounter, the ISPS evaluated history-taking completeness item by item using a predefined 100-point Medical History-Taking Assessment rubric and provided individualized formative feedback. Patient-centered communication competence was assessed separately from the complete interview transcript using a four-domain scale. These automated scores and feedback were used solely for formative training and were not used as the primary post-intervention outcome of the randomized trial.

In the system version evaluated in this study, case information and scoring criteria were configure

Conventional Clinical Teaching

Other

Participants received conventional clinical education for four weeks, including bedside teaching, case-based learning, paper-based medical record review, and faculty-guided clinical discussions according to the standard curriculum.

Primary outcomes

  1. Diagnostic accuracy

    Time frame: Immediately after the 4-week intervention

    Diagnostic accuracy was defined as the proportion of participants who correctly identified the primary diagnosis during the standardized OSCE.

  2. History-taking completeness score

    Time frame: Immediately after the 4-week intervention

    History-taking completeness was evaluated during a standardized Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) using a validated rubric with a total score ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate more complete history-taking performance.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Communication Competence

    Time frame: Immediately after the 4-week intervention

    Communication competence was assessed from the complete standardized history-taking interview transcript using a four-domain scale based on the Understanding the Patient's Perspective domain of the SEGUE framework. The four domains were exploring the patient's ideas, exploring the patient's concerns, exploring the impact of illness, and expressing understanding and support. Each domain was scored from 1 to 5, producing a total score ranging from 4 to 20. Higher scores indicated better patient-centered communication competence.

  2. Acceptance of the Intelligent Simulated Patient System

    Time frame: Immediately after completion of the intervention

    Participants in the intervention group completed a 19-item questionnaire based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Items were rated using a 5-point Likert scale and assessed perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived enjoyment, attitude toward use and behavioral intention, and perceived risks and limitations. Item scores were transformed to a scale ranging from 20 to 100. Higher scores indicated more favorable evaluations, except in the Risks and Limitations domain, in which higher scores indicated greater perceived concerns.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Development and Evaluation of an Intelligent Simulated Patient System Based on Large Language Models for Gastroenterology History-Taking Education: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Important dates

Study start
2026
Primary completion
2026
Study completion
2026
First posted
Jul 20, 2026
Registry last updated
Aug 6, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.