Cited by 80Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInnovations in Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Education

Artificial Intelligence in Health Professions Education assessment: AMEE Guide No. 178

Masters, Ken, MacNeil, Heather, Benjamin, Jennifer, Carver, Tamara, Nemethy, Kataryna, Valanci-Aroesty, Sofia, Taylor, David C. M., Thoma, Brent +1 more·2025·Medical Teacher

Abstract

Health Professions Education (HPE) assessment is being increasingly impacted by Artificial Intelligence (AI), and institutions, educators, and learners are grappling with AI's ever-evolving complexities, dangers, and potential. This AMEE Guide aims to assist all HPE stakeholders by helping them navigate the assessment uncertainty before them. Although the impetus is AI, the Guide grounds its path in pedagogical theory, considers the range of human responses, and then deals with assessment types, challenges, AI roles as tutor and learner, and required competencies. It then discusses the difficult and ethical issues, before ending with considerations for faculty development and the technicalities of AI acknowledgment in assessment. Through this Guide, we aim to allay fears in the face of change and demonstrate possibilities that will allow educators and learners to harness the full potential of AI in HPE assessment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0142159x.2024.2445037

Cites

81 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI tools, such as automated grading systems and chatbots for feedback, offer the potential to scale personalized assessments.

    “AI tools, such as automated grading systems and chatbots for feedback, offer the potential to scale personalized assessments, but their ethical implications must be carefully considered [140-142].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Zeff M. people are going to fall in love with the flirty GPT-4 omni. Gizmodo. 2024; [cited 2024 Nov 11]. Available from: https://gizmodo.com/people-are-going-to-fall-in-love-with-the-flirty-gpt-4-1851473938
  2. Xiao C Ma W Song Q et al. Human-AI collaborative essay scoring: a dual-process framework with LLMs [Internet]. arXiv; 2024 [cited 2024 Nov 19]. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.06431. · arXiv
  3. TMU. Designing assessments [Internet]. Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU); 2021. [cited 2024 Aug 4]. Toronto, Canada. Available from: https://www.torontomu.ca/learning-teaching/teaching-resources/assessment/
  4. Khan A Hughes J Valentine D et al. Debating with more persuasive LLMs leads to more truthful answers [Internet]. arXiv; 2024 [cited 2024 Nov 12]. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.06782. · arXiv
  5. Basbøll T. Why you shouldn’t cite, acknowledge, or credit an AI with authorship [Internet]. Inframethodology. 2023; [cited 2024 Aug 4]. Available from: https://inframethodology.cbs.dk/?p=6171
  6. Elsevier. The use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in writing for Elsevier [Internet]. n.d. [cited 2024 Nov 19]. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/the-use-of-generative-ai-and-ai-assisted-technologies-in-writing-for-elsevier.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Masters, K., MacNeil, H., Benjamin, J., Carver, T., Nemethy, K., Valanci-Aroesty, S., Taylor, D. C. M., Thoma, B., & Thesen, T.
Affiliations
  • Sultan Qaboos University (OM)
  • Department of Medicine, University of Toronto
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Baycrest Academy for Research and Education (CA)
  • Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
  • Gulf Medical University (AE)
  • Toronto Metropolitan University (CA)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
Corresponding author
Masters, Ken
Venue
Medical Teacher
Published
2025-01-09
Volume
47
Issue
9
Pages
1410-1424
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
OpenAlex
W4406200047
Cited by
80
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 30
FWCI
19.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence, health professions education, assessment, AI tutors, evaluation ethics, faculty development, AI competencies, pedagogical theory
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Educational Measurement, Health Occupations, Humans

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