Nudging Toward Precision Medical Education: Linking Diagnostic Exposures to Tailored Learning
Rafel, J.; Sartori, D. J.; Finkelstein, H.; Moussa, O.; Triola, M. M.
Show abstract
Problem Authentic patient encounters are the raw material of clinical learning, yet the educational resources learners receive are rarely keyed to the diagnoses in front of them, creating temporal and cognitive gaps. Precision medical education (PME) proposes delivering the right resource to the right learner at the right moment, but practical implementation in the clinical learning environment remains limited. Approach We developed DxMentor, an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated platform that captures each learner's daily inpatient diagnostic exposures from documented International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. Artificial intelligence (AI) is used to match each diagnosis to an educator-curated formulary of micro-learning resources and board-style questions, and to PubMed-derived primary and synthesis literature converted into plain-language evidence summaries. A personalized email "nudge" is delivered before morning rounds, copying supervising attendings for residents, with engagement tracked longitudinally. We report implementation outcomes from July 2024-April 2026. Outcomes DxMentor evaluated 32,846 encounters from 335 medical students and 346 internal medicine residents, delivering 17,340 nudges containing 63,754 didactic resources, 17,038 question sets, and 23,594 summarized articles for approximately $390 in AI token costs. In a benchmarking sample, 91.5% (366/400) of diagnosis-resource pairs were rated relevant by physician-educators. Overall, 78.5% (12,393/15,793) of nudges were opened and 11.3% (1,955/17,340) had at least one click. Engagement was higher among residents than students (open: 80.7% vs. 65.8%; click-through: 12.7% vs. 3.1%; both P < .001), with substantial between-learner variability. Next Steps Email opens and clicks are engagement proxies rather than measures of learning. We are therefore linking nudges to educational outcomes, testing alternative recommendation strategies and timing, and expanding to additional specialties and ambulatory and surgical settings.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- International Electronic Health Record-Derived COVID-19 Clinical Course Profiles: The 4CE Consortium 92%
- A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation 91%
- A typology of physician input approaches to using AI chatbots for clinical decision-making: a mixed methods study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Eleven key measures for monitoring general practice clinical activity during COVID-19 using federated analytics on 48 million adults’ primary care records through OpenSAFELY 90%
- Augmented Curation of Clinical Notes from a Massive EHR System Reveals Symptoms of Impending COVID-19 Diagnosis 87%
- The Effect of COVID-19 on the Postdoctoral Experience: a comparison of pre-pandemic and pandemic surveys. 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quality of Human Expert vs. Large Language Model Generated Multiple Choice Questions in the Field of Mechanical Ventilation 89%
- Development and Prospective Validation of a Transparent Deep Learning Algorithm for Predicting Need for Mechanical Ventilation 84%
- Effect of Ventilator Mode on Ventilator-Free Days in Critically Ill Adults: A Randomized Trial 83%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.