Bytes versus brains: a comparative study of AI-generated feedback and human tutor feedback in medical education
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Timely, high-quality feedback is vital in medical education but increasingly difficult due to rising student numbers and limited faculty. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools offer scalable solutions, yet limited research compares their effectiveness with traditional tutor feedback. This study examined the comparative effectiveness of AI-generated feedback versus human tutor feedback within the medical curriculum. METHODS: Second-year medical students (n = 108) received two sets of feedback on a written assignment, one from their tutor and one unedited response from ChatGPT. Students assessed each feedback using a structured online questionnaire focused on key feedback quality criteria. RESULTS: Eighty-five students (79%) completed the evaluation. Tutor feedback was rated significantly higher in clarity and understandability (p < 0.001), relevance (p < 0.001), actionability (p = 0.009), comprehensiveness (p = 0.001), accuracy and reliability (p = 0.003), and overall usefulness (p < 0.001). However, 62.3% of students indicated that both pieces of feedback complemented each other. Open-ended responses aligned with these quantitative findings. . CONCLUSION: Human tutors currently provide superior feedback in terms of clarity, relevance, and accuracy. Nonetheless, AI-generated feedback shows promise as a complementary tool. A hybrid feedback model integrating AI and human input could enhance the scalability and richness of feedback in medical education.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Another study found AI feedback to be shorter and less relevant than human feedback.
“whereas another study found AI feedback to be shorter and less relevant [25].”
From AI-Generated Versus Human Supervisor Feedback on Medical Students’ Clinical Clerkship Logs: Cross-Sectional Convergent Mixed Methods Study (2026) · cites this paper as [25]
Cites
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 33,219 · see citing works
Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches
Lewis, S. (2015) · Health Promotion Practice · doi:10.1177/1524839915580941 · Cited by 22,105 · see citing works
Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching
SHULMAN, L. S. (1986) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x015002004 · Cited by 18,546 · see citing works
(2017) · Cited by 16,036 · see citing works
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · cited 3× · see citing works
“’ (feed-forward) [3].”
InfluentialZawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 · Cited by 7,242 · see citing works
Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/s1096-7516(00)00016-6 · Cited by 6,619 · see citing works
Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education
Popenici, S. A. D., & Kerr, S. (2017) · Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning · doi:10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8 · Cited by 2,019 · see citing works
Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.691462 · Cited by 1,636 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These demands are intensified by increasing class sizes and the shift toward competency-based curricula that necessitate more frequent assessment points [7,8].”
(2016) · Open Research Online (The Open University) · Cited by 1,410 · see citing works
Feedback in Clinical Medical Education
Ende, J. (1983) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03340060055026 · Cited by 1,259 · see citing works
(2019) · Open Research Online (The Open University) · Cited by 1,004 · see citing works
Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31
Norcini, J., & Burch, V. (2007) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590701775453 · Cited by 984 · see citing works
Dellermann, D., Ebel, P., Söllner, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2019) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-019-00595-2 · Cited by 826 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence innovation in education: A twenty-year data-driven historical analysis
Guan, C., Mou, J., & Jiang, Z. (2020) · International Journal of Innovation Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijis.2020.09.001 · Cited by 665 · see citing works
Designing educational technologies in the age of AI: A learning sciences‐driven approach
Luckin, R., & Cukurova, M. (2019) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12861 · Cited by 624 · see citing works
Medical Education Must Move From the Information Age to the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Wartman, S. A., & Combs, C. D. (2018) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002044 · Cited by 585 · see citing works
Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing
Steiss, J., Tate, T., Graham, S., Cruz, J., Hebert, M., Wang, J., Moon, Y., Tseng, W., Warschauer, M., & Olson, C. B. (2024) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894 · Cited by 509 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This finding is consistent with the work of Steiss et al. who found that human experts were better at providing clear and context-specific feedback in surgical training compared to AI systems [23].”
Twelve tips for giving feedback effectively in the clinical environment
Ramani, S., & Krackov, S. K. (2012) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.684916 · Cited by 438 · see citing works
Co-Designing a Real-Time Classroom Orchestration Tool to Support Teacher–AI Complementarity
Holstein, K., McLaren, B. M., & Aleven, V. A. W. M. M. (2019) · Journal of Learning Analytics · doi:10.18608/jla.2019.62.3 · Cited by 429 · see citing works
Robot-Proof: Higher Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Aoun, J. E. (2017) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/11456.001.0001 · Cited by 429 · see citing works
Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education.
Lefroy, J., Watling, C., Teunissen, P. W., & Brand, P. (2015) · Perspectives on Medical Education · doi:10.1007/s40037-015-0231-7 · Cited by 347 · see citing works
Hybrid-augmented intelligence: collaboration and cognition
Zheng, N., Liu, Z.-Y., Ren, P.-J., Ma, Y.-Q., Chen, S.-T., Yu, S.-Y., Xue, J.-R., Chen, B.-D., & Wang, F.-Y. (2017) · Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering · doi:10.1631/fitee.1700053 · Cited by 303 · see citing works
Teacherbot: interventions in automated teaching
Bayne, S. (2015) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2015.1020783 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Ramani, S., Könings, K. D., Ginsburg, S., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2018) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2018.1432850 · Cited by 201 · see citing works
Winkler-Schwartz, A., Yilmaz, R., Mirchi, N., Bissonnette, V., Ledwos, N., Siyar, S., Azarnoush, H., Karlık, B., & Maestro, R. F. D. (2019) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8363 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12049 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Student Perceptions of AI-Generated Avatars in Teaching Business Ethics: We Might not be Impressed
Vallis, C., Wilson, S., Gozman, D., & Buchanan, J. (2023) · Postdigital Science and Education · doi:10.1007/s42438-023-00407-7 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Students’ Perceptions and Preferences of Generative Artificial Intelligence Feedback for Programming
Zhang, Z., Dong, Z., Shi, Y., Price, T., Matsuda, N., & Xu, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i21.30372 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Keijsers, C. J. P. W., Segers, W. S., Wildt, D. J. D., Brouwers, J. R. B. J., Keijsers, L., & Jansen, P. A. F. (2014) · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bcp.12575 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Yu, S., Wang, B., & Teo, T. P. (2018) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2018.06.001 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Yu, S., & Liu, J. (2026) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000047489 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Kıyak, Y. S., İş-Kara, T., & Emekli, E. (2026) · Medical Science Educator · doi:10.1007/s40670-025-02621-3 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Sudo, H., Noborimoto, Y., & Takahashi, J. (2025) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/85614 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Rakha, A. H. (2026) · Frontiers in Sports and Active Living · doi:10.3389/fspor.2026.1772502 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Stephenson, E., Morrigan, K., Irfan, A., Bascombe, K., & Okorie, M. (2026) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-026-09300-w · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Kondo, T., Donkers, J., Nishigori, H., Rovers, S., & Heeneman, S. (2026) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/90064 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Most prior comparisons of AI and human feedback have been conducted in classroom or simulation settings [22,24,25, 54], where the knowledge base is relatively well-defined and the feedback task is circumscribed.”
InfluentialUsing large language model to aid in teaching medical imaging report writing
Chen, Y., Xiang, P., Zhou, Q., Li, C., Zhang, X., Wang, J., Wang, H. J., Gao, Z., Yang, Z., Ye, S., et al. (2025) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2025.2603353 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Jeong, I. H., Kim, H., & Hwang, H. (2026) · Kosin Medical Journal · doi:10.7180/kmj.26.173 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Feedback and Feedback Culture in Medical Education: Evolution, Evidence, and Emerging Horizons
Peterec, K., Kazmir, S., Chartash, D., & Phatak, U. P. (2026) · International Medical Education · doi:10.3390/ime5030071 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Kondo, T., Donkers, J. H. H. L. M., Nishigori, H., Rovers, S. F. E., & Heeneman, S. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.90064
Mihara, H. (2026) · Education and human development · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1012733
Wu, B., & Chen, Y. (2025) · International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Education (WAIE) · doi:10.1109/waie67422.2025.11381034
Stadler, P., Bucichowski, P., Holzhausen, Y., Hege, I., Peters, H., & Kaminski, J. J. (2026) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/94666
Ding, H., & Homer, M. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-02106-4
Itoh, Y., Kedoin, H., Sugisawa, S., Nirengi, T., & Sato, Y. (2026) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2026.2733152
Cook, P., O’Brien, J., Hadfield-Law, L., & Imam, M. (2026) · BMJ Innovations · doi:10.1136/bmjinnov-2026-001565
Khan, H. A., Qureshi, A. A., Inam, S., & Zehra, N. (2026) · Journal of Rawalpindi Medical College · doi:10.37939/jrmc.3241
Bostraeten, P. V., Mertens, L., Jaeken, J., Bossen, J. K. J., Toelen, J., Bekkering, G. E., Delvaux, N., & Aertgeerts, B. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/102449
- Authors
- Ali, M., Harbieh, I., & Haider, K. H.
- Affiliations
- Sulaiman Al Rajhi Colleges (SA)
- Corresponding author
- Ali, Majid
- Venue
- Medical Teacher
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2025-06-18
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 131-141
- ISSN
- 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
- 1466-187X
- OpenAlex
- W4411432023
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 4.57
- 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
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- AI-generated feedback, ChatGPT, feedback quality, medical education, second-year medical students, writing assignments, student perceptions of feedback
- MeSH terms
- Formative Feedback, Artificial Intelligence, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Feedback, Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Medical
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
