AI-driven Multiple Interactive Teaching Model on Nuclear Medicine Students' Theoretical Knowledge and Practical Skills

August 20, 2026 updated by: Hao Wang, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital

The Impact of AI-driven Multiple Interactive Teaching Model on Nuclear Medicine Students' Theoretical Knowledge and Practical Skills

This single-center randomized controlled trial will enroll 85 nuclear medicine undergraduate students. Participants will be randomized into two arms: a three-stage AI multi-interactive teaching intervention group (n=43) and a conventional lecture-based control group (n=42). The study is designed to compare theoretical knowledge, instructor-rated performance, student satisfaction, discussion participation, core concept comprehension, and classroom engagement between the two teaching approaches. Planned evaluations will be conducted after the teaching intervention.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

85

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • China
    • Sichuan
      • Chengdu, Sichuan, China, 610072
        • Hao Wang

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Undergraduate students majoring in clinical medicine who take the nuclear medicine theoretical course.
  • Age ≥18 years old.
  • Voluntarily agree to participate in this study and provide informed consent.
  • Complete the full-cycle nuclear medicine teaching activities.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Students who have previously received systematic nuclear medicine coursework.
  • Incomplete participation in teaching activities or missing post-intervention assessment data.
  • Students who refuse to join this research.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: AI-driven multiple interactive teaching group
Behavioral: AI-driven multiple interactive nuclear medicine teaching
Undergraduate students receive nuclear medicine theoretical courses via AI-driven multiple interactive teaching mode.
Active Comparator: Traditional lecture-based teaching group
Behavioral: Traditional lecture-based nuclear medicine teaching
Undergraduate students receive standard nuclear medicine theoretical courses by conventional lecture-based teaching.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Difference in post-test theoretical knowledge scores of nuclear medicine between the two student groups
Time Frame: At the end of the teaching intervention (approximately 4-week teaching period)
Nuclear medicine theoretical knowledge post-test score; examination scale range from 0 (minimum, poorest performance) to 100 (maximum, best performance). Higher scores indicate better theoretical knowledge mastery. The between-group score difference will be compared.
At the end of the teaching intervention (approximately 4-week teaching period)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Difference in student classroom engagement scores between AI-driven teaching group and traditional lecture group
Time Frame: At the end of the teaching intervention (approximately 4-week teaching period)
Student classroom engagement is assessed using a validated classroom engagement rating scale. The total scale score ranges from 20 (minimum, poorest classroom engagement) to 100 (maximum, optimal classroom engagement). Higher scores represent better classroom engagement of students. The difference in post-intervention engagement scores between the two groups will be analyzed.
At the end of the teaching intervention (approximately 4-week teaching period)
Difference in learning satisfaction questionnaire scores between the two groups
Time Frame: At the end of the teaching intervention (approximately 4-week teaching period)
Student learning satisfaction is evaluated with a standardized learning satisfaction questionnaire. The overall questionnaire score ranges from 10 (minimum, lowest learning satisfaction) to 50 (maximum, highest learning satisfaction). Higher scores indicate higher student learning satisfaction with nuclear medicine teaching. Post-intervention satisfaction scores are compared between the AI-driven teaching group and the traditional lecture group.
At the end of the teaching intervention (approximately 4-week teaching period)
Difference in practical-relevant learning experience scores between the two groups
Time Frame: At the end of the teaching intervention (approximately 4-week teaching period)
Students' practical-relevant learning experience is assessed using a validated practical learning experience scale. The total scale score ranges from 15 (minimum, poorest practical learning experience) to 75 (maximum, optimal practical learning experience). Higher scores represent better practical learning experience and stronger perceived mastery of nuclear medicine practical knowledge. Post-intervention learning experience scores are compared between the AI-driven teaching group and the traditional lecture group.
At the end of the teaching intervention (approximately 4-week teaching period)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

February 1, 2025

Primary Completion (Actual)

June 30, 2025

Study Completion (Actual)

June 30, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

August 17, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 20, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

August 21, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

August 21, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 20, 2026

Last Verified

August 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

  • SichuanPPH-teaching

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Subscribe