Teaching Doctors in Training to Reason With Artificial Intelligence (TEACH-AI)
Teaching Internal Medicine and Family Medicine Residents to Reason With Generative AI: A Multi-Site Randomized Controlled Trial (TEACH-AI)
The purpose of the TEACH-AI study is to assess whether a brief, structured workshop on artificial intelligence can improve the performance of medicine doctors in training (i.e. residents) in their diagnostic and management reasoning.
In this multi-site randomized controlled trial, internal medicine and family medicine residents are assigned either to receive an in-person workshop on safe, effective LLM use before a standardized AI-assisted assessment, or to complete the same assessment before receiving the workshop. Residents will review clinical cases that are fully synthetic, no protected health information is used, using a password protected LLM interface.
研究概览
详细说明
Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly entered routine use in medical education and clinical practice. Prior randomized trials have shown that, although LLMs can outperform individual clinicians on some reasoning benchmarks, providing physicians with access to an LLM does not necessarily improve their diagnostic or management performance, and LLMs alone may perform better than physician-plus-LLM teams. These findings suggest that human-AI collaboration is fraught, non-trivial and may require explicit training.
TEACH-AI is a pragmatic, multi-site, two-arm randomized controlled trial embedded within protected residency didactic time. The primary objective is to determine whether a single in-person workshop on the basics of LLMs and best practices of prompting/verification strategies improves residents' performance on an AI-assisted assessment, compared with residents who complete the simulation before receiving the workshop. All participants will ultimately receive the same workshop and the same assessment (either workshop-first vs assessment-first).
The simulation consists of multiple fully synthetic vignettes delivered via a password protected LLM interface. Residents interact freely with the LLM using natural-language prompts and then submit structured final responses regarding aspects such as leading diagnosis, differential, management plan, and/or justification. The platform will record prompts, model outputs, final answers, and timing. Vignette scoring combines correctness of the final diagnosis or management plan. Scoring is conducted by blinded faculty using standardized rubrics and then any discrepancies will be resolved through multiple rounds of discussions.
The trial will enroll up to 200 residents across four ACGME-accredited programs (internal medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Stanford University, and Cambridge Health Alliance; family medicine at AdventHealth Orlando).
研究类型
注册 (估计的)
阶段
- 不适用
联系人和位置
学习联系方式
- 姓名：Jacob M Koshy, MD, MPH
- 电话号码：617-754-4677
- 邮箱：jkoshy@bidmc.harvard.edu
学习地点
-
-
California
-
Palo Alto、California、美国、94305
- Stanford University
-
接触：
- Kevin Keet, MD
- 电话号码：650-498-4559
- 邮箱：kkeet@stanford.edu
-
首席研究员：
- Kevin R Keet, MD
-
-
Florida
-
Orlando、Florida、美国、32804
- AdventHealth
-
接触：
- Raj Mehta, MD
- 电话号码：407-845-8383
- 邮箱：raj.mehta.md@adventhealth.com
-
首席研究员：
- Raj Mehta, MD
-
-
Massachusetts
-
Boston、Massachusetts、美国、02215
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
-
接触：
- Jacob M Koshy, MD, MPH
- 电话号码：617-754-4677
- 邮箱：jkoshy@bidmc.harvard.edu
-
首席研究员：
- Jacob M Koshy, MD, MPH
-
Cambridge、Massachusetts、美国、02139
- Cambridge Health Alliance
-
接触：
- Priyank Jain, MD
- 电话号码：617-665-1000
-
首席研究员：
- Priyank Jain, MD
-
-
参与标准
资格标准
适合学习的年龄
- 孩子
- 成人
- 年长者
接受健康志愿者
描述
Inclusion Criteria:
- Participants must be licensed physicians and have started at least post-graduate year 1 (PGY1) of medical training.
- Training in Internal medicine or family medicine or emergency medicine.
- Able to provide informed consent and complete assessments in English.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Not currently practicing clinically.
- Resident directly involved in the design of the study, development of the workshop, or creation/piloting of the assessment vignettes.
- Resident who declines or withdraws consent.
学习计划
研究是如何设计的？
设计细节
- 主要用途：诊断
- 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 |
|---|---|
|
无干预：Assessment-First
Participants assigned to this group will be tasked with completing the assessment using a password protected LLM interface first in advance of the workshop.
The workshop will be delivered during a scheduled mandatory didactic time slot.
|
|
|
实验性的：Workshop-first
Participants assigned to this group will be tasked with completing the assessment using a password protected LLM interface after they participate in a scheduled mandatory didactic time slot.
|
Participants will attend a workshop during their didactic time that will review various aspects of large language models including fundamentals and best practices of interacting and interpreting their outputs.
|
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 |
|---|---|---|
|
Total Score on Expert-Development Rubrics
大体时间：Within 24 hours of assessment completion.
|
The primary outcome will be the number of correct responses for all cases using select questions from expert-developed scoring rubrics.
The rubrics were developed using a Delphi consensus process by expert physicians as established by Goh et al (Nature Medicine, 2025; DOI: 10.1038/s41591-024-03456-y). The primary outcome will be analyzed at the case level, comparing performance between the randomized study groups, with a higher number of correct responses indicating a better outcome.
|
Within 24 hours of assessment completion.
|
次要结果测量
结果测量 |
措施说明 |
大体时间 |
|---|---|---|
|
Time Spent on Management
大体时间：Within 24 hours of assessment completion.
|
Comparison of time spent per case between the two study groups.
|
Within 24 hours of assessment completion.
|
|
Prompt Count
大体时间：Within 24 hours of assessment completion.
|
Comparison of the number of resident-initiated prompts to the LLM per case between the two study groups.
|
Within 24 hours of assessment completion.
|
|
Management Reasoning Using Expert-Derived Rubrics
大体时间：Within 24 hours of assessment completion.
|
Comparison of management reasoning accuracy based on the number of correct responses per case between the two groups on expert-developed scoring rubrics.
The rubrics were developed using a Delphi consensus process by expert physicians as established by Goh et al (Nature Medicine, 2025; DOI: 10.1038/s41591-024-03456-y). The primary outcome will be analyzed at the case level, comparing performance between the randomized study groups with more correct responses indicating a better outcome.
|
Within 24 hours of assessment completion.
|
|
Diagnostic Reasoning
大体时间：Within 24 hours of assessment completion.
|
Comparison of diagnostic reasoning accuracy based on the number of correct responses per case between the two groups.
|
Within 24 hours of assessment completion.
|
合作者和调查者
研究记录日期
研究主要日期
学习开始 (估计的)
初级完成 (估计的)
研究完成 (估计的)
研究注册日期
首次提交
首先提交符合 QC 标准的
首次发布 (实际的)
研究记录更新
最后更新发布 (实际的)
上次提交的符合 QC 标准的更新
最后验证
更多信息
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.