Cited by 31Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInnovations in Medical EducationSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare

Using clinical history taking chatbot mobile app for clinical bedside teachings – A prospective case control study

Open access
Co, Michael, John Yuen, Tsz Hon, Cheung, Ho Hung·2022·Heliyon

Abstract

Introduction: A novel chatbot mobile app for training of undergraduate medical students' clinical history taking skills was developed in 2021. Students were able to take clinical history from the virtual patient for bedside teaching. A case-control study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of learning with chatbot mobile app, versus conventional bedside teachings with real patients. Methods: 132 final year medical students were randomized into two groups - Conventional bedside teaching with clinical history taken from a real patient, and Bedside teaching with clinical history taken from the Chatbot. Independent blinded assessment of students' history taking skills was conducted. Students' performance were assessed by standardized marking scheme. Results: Median age was 23 years old (Range 21-30 years old). There were 62 female and 70 male students.64 students were randomized into conventional group while 68 students were randomized into the chatbot group. Baseline demographic data were comparable between the two groups.Blinded assessment of students' performance in clinical history taking were comparable between the conventional group and chatbot group (p > 0.05). Conclusion: With the promising results we have demonstrated in this study, we believe training of history taking skills by chatbot will be a feasible alternative to conventional bedside teaching.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09751

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Co, M., John Yuen, T. H., & Cheung, H. H.
Affiliations
Queen Mary Hospital (CN)
Corresponding author
Co, Michael
Venue
Heliyon
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-06
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
e09751
ISSN
2405-8440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4283120867
Cited by
31
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Heliyon (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Keywords
chatbots, clinical history taking, medical education, bedside teaching, virtual patients, mobile application, undergraduate medical students, history-taking skills, simulation-based training

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review