{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,12]],"date-time":"2026-10-12T11:45:37Z","timestamp":1791805537980,"version":"4.3.4"},"reference-count":17,"publisher":"FapUNIFESP (SciELO)","issue":"10","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,1]],"date-time":"2026-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1767225600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,1]],"date-time":"2026-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1767225600000},"content-version":"am","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,1]],"date-time":"2026-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1767225600000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras."],"abstract":"<jats:p>SUMMARY  OBJECTIVE: Artificial intelligence tools are increasingly used to provide individualized feedback in medical education. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of feedback generated by ChatGPT and Gemini during scenario-based clinical reasoning activities.  METHODS: A convergent mixed-methods study was conducted with 32 medical interns randomly assigned to ChatGPT (n=16) or Gemini (n=16). Following a virtual patient interview on iron deficiency anemia, artificial intelligence-generated feedback was evaluated by interns and medical education specialists using an 11-item rubric assessing clarity, accuracy, structure, identification of strengths and weaknesses, contribution to clinical reasoning, and overall educational value. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney U tests, while qualitative data were examined through content analysis.  RESULTS: Interns rated ChatGPT slightly higher than Gemini (1.80\u00b10.20 vs. 1.75\u00b10.26), whereas specialists reported similar scores (1.91\u00b10.06 vs. 1.87\u00b10.10). No statistically significant differences were identified (p&gt;0.05). Both systems were perceived as clear, supportive, and constructive; however, insufficient patient-centeredness emerged as a common limitation of both artificial intelligence systems. Qualitative findings indicated that ChatGPT provided more structured and reflective feedback, whereas Gemini offered more concrete examples. Common limitations included insufficient patient-centeredness, lack of systematicity, and occasional unrealistic statements.  CONCLUSION: ChatGPT and Gemini generated educationally useful feedback for scenario-based clinical reasoning activities. Although artificial intelligence tools cannot replace expert supervision, they may support personalized learning and reduce faculty workload when used under human oversight.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1590\/1806-9282.20260869","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,12]],"date-time":"2026-10-12T10:56:39Z","timestamp":1791802599000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and Gemini feedback in scenario-based clinical reasoning among medical interns"],"prefix":"10.1590","volume":"72","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-1780-3531","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Hilal Hatice","family":"\u00dclk\u00fc","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Ayd\u0131n Adnan Menderes University","place":["Ayd\u0131n, Turkey"]}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-6942-888X","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Fulya","family":"Torun","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Ayd\u0131n Adnan Menderes University","place":["Ayd\u0131n, Turkey"]}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-6329-4227","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Selcen","family":"\u00d6nc\u00fc","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Ayd\u0131n Adnan Menderes University","place":["Ayd\u0131n, Turkey"]}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"530","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026]]},"reference":[{"issue":"1","key":"ref1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"98","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1365-2929.2004.01972.x","article-title":"What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning","volume":"39","author":"Eva KW","year":"2005","journal-title":"Med Educ"},{"issue":"1","key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"4","DOI":"10.5811\/westjem.2016.11.33191","article-title":"Clinical reasoning: defining it, teaching it, assessing it, studying it","volume":"18","author":"Gruppen LD","year":"2016","journal-title":"West J Emerg Med"},{"issue":"1","key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"81","DOI":"10.3102\/003465430298487","article-title":"The power of feedback","volume":"77","author":"Hattie J","year":"2007","journal-title":"Rev Educ Res"},{"key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"50","DOI":"10.1186\/s12909-024-06321-1","article-title":"Application of ChatGPT-assisted problem-based learning teaching method in clinical medical education","volume":"25","author":"Hui Z","year":"2025","journal-title":"BMC Med Educ"},{"issue":"9","key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"785","DOI":"10.1016\/j.tree.2023.05.007","article-title":"Leveraging AI tools to develop the writer rather than the writing","volume":"38","author":"Ingley SJ","year":"2023","journal-title":"Trends Ecol Evol"},{"key":"ref6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"100118","DOI":"10.1016\/j.caeai.2022.100118","article-title":"Systematic literature review on opportunities, challenges, and future research recommendations of artificial intelligence in education","volume":"4","author":"Chiu TK","year":"2023","journal-title":"Comput Educ Artif Intell"},{"issue":"3","key":"ref7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"460","DOI":"10.1080\/14703297.2023.2195846","article-title":"A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: implications for educational practice and research","volume":"61","author":"Farrokhnia M","year":"2024","journal-title":"Innov Educ Teach Int"},{"issue":"2","key":"ref8","first-page":"133","article-title":"How to harness the potential of ChatGPT in education?","volume":"15","author":"Zhu C","year":"2023","journal-title":"Knowl Manag E-Learn"},{"issue":"2","key":"ref9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E146","DOI":"10.1001\/amajethics.2019.146","article-title":"Reimagining medical education in the age of AI","volume":"21","author":"Wartman SA","year":"2019","journal-title":"AMA J Ethics"},{"issue":"2","key":"ref10","article-title":"Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models","volume":"2","author":"Kung TH","year":"2023","journal-title":"PLoS Digit Health"},{"key":"ref11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"101753","DOI":"10.1016\/j.artmed.2019.101753","article-title":"Artificial intelligence and the future of psychiatry: insights from a global physician survey","volume":"102","author":"Doraiswamy PM","year":"2020","journal-title":"Artif Intell Med"},{"key":"ref12","series-title":"Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2023)","first-page":"323","volume-title":"Can large language models provide feedback to students? A case study on ChatGPT","author":"Dai W","year":"2023"},{"issue":"2","key":"ref13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"100050","DOI":"10.1016\/j.rmal.2023.100050","article-title":"Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring","volume":"2","author":"Mizumoto A","year":"2023","journal-title":"Res Methods Appl Linguist"},{"key":"ref14","first-page":"1423","article-title":"Artificial intelligence in narrative feedback analysis for competency-based medical education: a review","volume":"327","author":"Khan SA","year":"2025","journal-title":"Stud Health Technol Inform"},{"key":"ref15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"109625","DOI":"10.1016\/j.surg.2025.109625","article-title":"Quality matters: artificial intelligence-based assessment of feedback quality predicts technical skill improvement","volume":"187","author":"Kewalramani D","year":"2025","journal-title":"Surgery"},{"issue":"2","key":"ref16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"314","DOI":"10.35877\/454RI.asci4126","article-title":"Artificial intelligence in educational measurement: a bibliometric review (1997 to 2024)","volume":"7","author":"Othman N","year":"2025","journal-title":"J Appl Sci Eng Technol Educ"},{"key":"ref17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"100215","DOI":"10.1016\/j.caeai.2024.100215","article-title":"Human-centred learning analytics and AI in education: a systematic literature review","volume":"6","author":"Alfredo R","year":"2024","journal-title":"Comput Educ Artif Intell"}],"container-title":["Revista da Associa\u00e7\u00e3o M\u00e9dica Brasileira"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/www.scielo.br\/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&pid=S0104-42302026001002207&tlng=en","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/www.scielo.br\/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&pid=S0104-42302026001002207&tlng=en","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,12]],"date-time":"2026-10-12T10:56:43Z","timestamp":1791802603000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/www.scielo.br\/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302026001002207&tlng=en"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026]]},"references-count":17,"journal-issue":{"issue":"10","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026]]}},"alternative-id":["S0104-42302026001002207"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1590\/1806-9282.20260869","relation":{},"ISSN":["1806-9282","0104-4230"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1806-9282","type":"electronic"},{"value":"0104-4230","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026]]},"article-number":"e20260869"}}