此页面是自动翻译的,不保证翻译的准确性。请参阅 英文版 对于源文本。

AI-Assisted Adaptive Simulation in Physiology Education (PBL)

2026年5月20日 更新者:Jeevarathinam Thirumalai、Saveetha University

Effect of Adaptive AI-Supported Simulation on Physiology Learning Outcomes Among Medical Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial

This randomized controlled trial evaluated whether an AI-assisted, rule-based adaptive screen-based simulation module could improve physiology learning outcomes among undergraduate health science students compared with conventional instruction. A total of 672 students from Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the adaptive simulation group or the conventional teaching group. The intervention used web-based clinical physiology cases with algorithm-supported case sequencing, automated formative feedback, and structured faculty-led debriefing, while the control group received standard lectures, textbook reading, tutorial sessions, and laboratory practicals. The primary outcomes were physiological knowledge and reasoning ability, and the secondary outcomes were conceptual understanding, engagement, cognitive load, and academic self-efficacy. Assessments were performed at baseline, immediately after the 12-week intervention, and again at four-week follow-up.

研究概览

详细说明

This study was designed as a prospective, two-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with repeated-measures assessment at three time points: baseline, immediately post-intervention, and four weeks after the intervention. It was conducted at Saveetha Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, India, between August 2025 and January 2026, and received institutional ethical approval before enrollment. Participants were undergraduate health science students aged 18 to 25 years who were enrolled in a Human Physiology course and had access to an internet-enabled personal device. Students with prior formal exposure to simulation-based physiology instruction or adaptive digital learning platforms were excluded. After baseline assessment, participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention or control group, with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment.

The intervention group received physiology instruction through a screen-based adaptive simulation environment over 12 weeks. The module was intentionally designed as a bundled educational strategy integrating adaptive case sequencing, automated formative feedback, and faculty-led debriefing. The adaptive component used predefined rule-based logic to personalize learning by adjusting case difficulty and feedback pathways according to learner performance; it did not use autonomous generative artificial intelligence or clinical decision-making. Participants completed structured simulation sessions for two hours per week, including pre-briefing, individual case-based simulation, and facilitated debriefing. The control group received conventional curriculum-based physiology instruction over the same 12-week period, including didactic lectures, prescribed textbook readings, tutorial sessions, and laboratory practicals.

The study prioritized objective learning outcomes. Physiological knowledge was measured using a 40-item multiple-choice test, physiological reasoning ability using a scenario-based rubric-scored assessment, and conceptual understanding using a physiology concept inventory. Secondary outcomes included student engagement measured with the USEI, cognitive load measured with NASA-TLX, and academic self-efficacy measured with an adapted CASES scale. Outcomes were collected at baseline, post-intervention, and follow-up using the same instruments across all time points.

研究类型

介入性

注册 (实际的)

672

阶段

  • 不适用

联系人和位置

本节提供了进行研究的人员的详细联系信息,以及有关进行该研究的地点的信息。

学习地点

    • Tamil Nadu
      • Chennai、Tamil Nadu、印度、602105
        • Saveetha Institute of Basic Medical Sciences (SIBMS), Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS)

参与标准

研究人员寻找符合特定描述的人,称为资格标准。这些标准的一些例子是一个人的一般健康状况或先前的治疗。

资格标准

适合学习的年龄

  • 成人

接受健康志愿者

是的

描述

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Undergraduate students enrolled in Health Science programs including Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences
  • Registered for a Human Physiology course during the study period
  • Age between 18 and 25 years
  • Proficiency in English language
  • Access to an internet-enabled personal device capable of supporting web-based educational applications
  • Willingness to provide written informed consent for participation

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Prior formal exposure to structured simulation-based physiology instruction
  • Prior exposure to adaptive digital learning platforms related to physiology education
  • Inability to access or use internet-enabled educational applications required for the intervention
  • Declined or withdrew informed consent for participation

学习计划

本节提供研究计划的详细信息,包括研究的设计方式和研究的衡量标准。

研究是如何设计的?

设计细节

  • 主要用途:基础科学
  • 分配:随机化
  • 介入模型:并行分配
  • 屏蔽:单身的

武器和干预

参与者组/臂
干预/治疗
实验性的:I-Assisted Adaptive Simulation Group
Participants received AI-assisted algorithm-supported adaptive screen-based physiology simulation over a 12-week period. The intervention included adaptive case sequencing, automated formative feedback, interactive clinical reasoning activities, animated physiological visualization, and structured faculty-led debriefing sessions aligned with physiology curriculum objectives.
The intervention consisted of an AI-assisted algorithm-supported adaptive screen-based physiology simulation delivered over 12 weeks. Participants engaged in structured web-based simulation sessions involving interactive clinical case scenarios, animated physiological visualizations, adaptive case sequencing, automated formative feedback, and faculty-led debriefing. The adaptive instructional system operated through predefined rule-based educational algorithms that adjusted case difficulty, feedback pathways, and learning progression according to participant performance within faculty-defined parameters. Sessions included pre-briefing, individual simulation-based clinical reasoning activities, adaptive feedback, and reflective debriefing. The intervention was implemented in alignment with the INACSL Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice and focused on improving physiological knowledge, conceptual understanding, and clinical reasoning skills.
其他名称:
  • Adaptive Screen-Based Simulation
  • AI-Assisted Adaptive Simulation
  • Rule-Based Adaptive Simulation
  • Adaptive Physiology Simulation Platform
有源比较器:Conventional Instruction Group
Participants received standard curriculum-based physiology instruction over a 12-week period, including didactic lectures, prescribed textbook readings, faculty-guided tutorial sessions, and scheduled laboratory practicals covering core physiological systems.
Participants received standard curriculum-based physiology instruction over a 12-week period according to institutional teaching guidelines. Conventional instruction included didactic lectures, prescribed textbook readings, faculty-guided tutorial sessions, and scheduled laboratory practicals covering cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, neurological, endocrine, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and integumentary physiology. Tutorial sessions focused on instructor-led clarification of physiological concepts, small-group discussion, and question-and-answer interactions. Laboratory practicals included supervised physiological measurements, observation of physiological demonstrations, interpretation of experimental findings, and guided analysis of physiological responses. The control condition did not include adaptive simulation, automated formative feedback, algorithm-supported instructional adaptation, or structured simulation-based clinical reasoning activities.
其他名称:
  • Standard Curriculum-Based Teaching
  • Conventional Teaching
  • Didactic Physiology Education
  • Traditional Physiology Instruction

研究衡量的是什么?

主要结果指标

结果测量
措施说明
大体时间
Physiological Reasoning Ability
大体时间:Baseline (Week 1), post-intervention (Week 13), and follow-up (Week 17)
Physiological reasoning ability was assessed using a scenario-based assessment requiring hypothesis generation, interpretation of physiological data, and application of physiological mechanisms to management decisions. Responses were scored using a standardized four-point analytic rubric assessing reasoning and clinical interpretation skills. Higher scores indicate better physiological reasoning ability.
Baseline (Week 1), post-intervention (Week 13), and follow-up (Week 17)
Physiological Knowledge
大体时间:Baseline (Week 1), post-intervention (Week 13), and follow-up (Week 17)
Physiological knowledge was assessed using a faculty-developed 40-item multiple-choice assessment designed to evaluate conceptual understanding and applied physiological reasoning across eight core physiological systems, including cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, neurological, endocrine, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and integumentary physiology. Higher scores indicate better physiology knowledge performance.
Baseline (Week 1), post-intervention (Week 13), and follow-up (Week 17)
Conceptual Understanding
大体时间:Baseline (Week 1), post-intervention (Week 13), and follow-up (Week 17)
Conceptual understanding was assessed using a faculty-developed Physiology Concept Inventory designed to evaluate deep conceptual understanding, integration of physiological mechanisms across systems, and identification of common physiological misconceptions. Higher scores indicate better conceptual understanding of physiology concepts.
Baseline (Week 1), post-intervention (Week 13), and follow-up (Week 17)

次要结果测量

结果测量
措施说明
大体时间
Student Engagement
大体时间:Baseline (Week 1), post-intervention (Week 13), and follow-up (Week 17)
Student engagement was assessed using the University Student Engagement Inventory (USEI), which evaluates behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions of learner engagement. Higher scores indicate greater learner engagement during physiology learning activities.
Baseline (Week 1), post-intervention (Week 13), and follow-up (Week 17)
Cognitive Load
大体时间:Baseline (Week 1), post-intervention (Week 13), and follow-up (Week 17)
Cognitive load was assessed using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a multidimensional measure evaluating perceived cognitive workload and task demand during learning activities. Higher scores indicate greater perceived cognitive workload.
Baseline (Week 1), post-intervention (Week 13), and follow-up (Week 17)
Academic Self-Efficacy
大体时间:Baseline (Week 1), post-intervention (Week 13), and follow-up (Week 17)
Academic self-efficacy was measured using an adapted version of the College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES) to evaluate learner confidence in physiology-related academic tasks and simulation-based learning activities. Higher scores indicate greater academic self-efficacy.
Baseline (Week 1), post-intervention (Week 13), and follow-up (Week 17)

合作者和调查者

在这里您可以找到参与这项研究的人员和组织。

出版物和有用的链接

负责输入研究信息的人员自愿提供这些出版物。这些可能与研究有关。

研究记录日期

这些日期跟踪向 ClinicalTrials.gov 提交研究记录和摘要结果的进度。研究记录和报告的结果由国家医学图书馆 (NLM) 审查,以确保它们在发布到公共网站之前符合特定的质量控制标准。

研究主要日期

学习开始 (实际的)

2025年8月1日

初级完成 (实际的)

2026年1月31日

研究完成 (实际的)

2026年1月31日

研究注册日期

首次提交

2026年5月15日

首先提交符合 QC 标准的

2026年5月20日

首次发布 (实际的)

2026年5月27日

研究记录更新

最后更新发布 (实际的)

2026年5月27日

上次提交的符合 QC 标准的更新

2026年5月20日

最后验证

2026年5月1日

更多信息

与本研究相关的术语

计划个人参与者数据 (IPD)

计划共享个人参与者数据 (IPD)?

不

IPD 计划说明

Individual participant data (IPD) will not be publicly shared because the dataset contains institution-linked educational performance information and participant-level academic assessment data. De-identified data may be considered for academic collaboration upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, subject to institutional ethical approval and data-sharing regulations.

药物和器械信息、研究文件

研究美国 FDA 监管的药品

不

研究美国 FDA 监管的设备产品

不

此信息直接从 clinicaltrials.gov 网站检索,没有任何更改。如果您有任何更改、删除或更新研究详细信息的请求,请联系 register@clinicaltrials.gov. clinicaltrials.gov 上实施更改,我们的网站上也会自动更新.

订阅