EUVIMEDEuropean Health Evidence
Uhr Sources10/10 Journal Tree
Easy Demo

European Health Evidence

The European alternative to PubMed

EUVIMED is the European alternative to PubMed: a central, multilingual research platform for medicine, nursing, life sciences and healthcare. It brings together international and European literature sources, study registries, open-access full texts, citations and retraction notices in one search. Unlike pure bibliographic databases, EUVIMED supports the entire research process – from discovery and appraisal with LIVIA and CLARA to traceable evidence synthesis. European in focus, transparent, interoperable and designed for science and healthcare.

EuropeanMultilingualInteroperableTraceable

EUVIMED BETA

EUVIMED is currently in beta

EUVIMED is under continuous development. Features, data coverage and presentation may change or be temporarily incomplete.

Results are beta

Search results, classifications, summaries and AI-assisted assessments may be incomplete, delayed or incorrect.

Check original sources

Do not use EUVIMED results without verification for diagnosis, treatment or other clinical decisions. Always consult the original source and applicable guidelines.

Errors and feedback help us improve EUVIMED: info@euvimed.com

Lokaler Crossref-Datenbestand · journal-article

AI-assisted vs. textbook-based vs. blended learning for acute abdomen diagnosis: a retrospective cohort study of emergency interns

Weidi Wang, Zhipeng Fang

Frontiers in Public Health · 2026

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

Background Large language models (LLMs) are reshaping medical education. Objective To examine whether learning approach—AI-assisted, textbook-based, or blended—was associated with diagnostic accuracy for acute abdominal conditions among emergency interns. Methods We reviewed 720 clinical decisions by 72 emergency interns at a tertiary center over 12 months. Interns were classified into three groups: textbook-based ( n = 27), AI-assisted ( n = 21), and blended ( n = 24). Propensity score matching with pair-stratified GEE addressed selection bias and clustering. Results Diagnostic accuracy was 73.0% (textbook), 82.4% (AI-assisted), and 87.1% (blended) ( p < 0.001). Blended learning showed the largest advantage over textbook (adjusted OR = 3.21, 95% CI: 1.87–5.51, p < 0.001), followed by AI-assisted (adjusted OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 0.99–2.85, p = 0.053). Matched analyses confirmed the benefit for blended learning ( p = 0.011). Subgroup analyses suggested larger effects for severe cases (OR = 4.92) and atypical presentations (OR = 3.85), with an E-value of 5.88 supporting robustness against unmeasured confounding. Conclusion Blended learning combining AI tools with traditional resources showed the strongest association with diagnostic accuracy, suggesting that integrated rather than exclusive approaches may better support clinical reasoning in emergency training.

Bibliografischer Nachweis

Publikationsdaten

Autor:innen
Weidi Wang, Zhipeng Fang
Quelle
Frontiers in Public Health
Publikation
2026-01-01
Band / Ausgabe
Nicht angegeben
Seiten
Nicht angegeben
ISSN / ISBN
2296-2565
Zitationen
0 laut Crossref
Referenzen
0 hinterlegt

Zitieren

Zitierfähiger Nachweis

Weidi Wang, Zhipeng Fang (2026). AI-assisted vs. textbook-based vs. blended learning for acute abdomen diagnosis: a retrospective cohort study of emergency interns. Frontiers in Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1914097
RIS BibTeX CSL-JSON

Kontext

Themen, Förderung und Nutzung

Lizenzhinweise: Lizenz 1