Assessment of Clinical Competence Using AI-Standardized Clinical Examination
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
BACKGROUND
As artificial intelligence (AI) enters clinical practice, concerns about deskilling and never-skilling make the independent assessment of clinical competence increasingly important. The AI-Standardized Clinical Examination (ASCE) uses AI to simulate and score standardized clinical encounters, potentially overcoming some of the logistical and standardization constraints of conventional objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs). Whether it provides valid and reliable assessment at scale is unknown.
METHODS
In this prospective multicenter cohort study, final-year medical students from six French medical schools completed a 10-station ASCE six weeks before the national OSCE session. GPT-4o simulated standardized clinical partners; transcripts were subsequently scored by GPT-4.1 against faculty-defined rubrics. The primary outcome was the correlation between ASCE and national OSCE scores. Secondary outcomes were inter-rater reliability of expert transcript scoring, alignment of ASCE scores with expert ratings, and internal consistency.
RESULTS
Among 948 enrolled students, 588 had paired ASCE and national OSCE scores. ASCE scores were correlated with national OSCE performance (Spearman’s ρ, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.63), with less than 1% of residual variance attributable to center (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.01). Eight experts scored 20 randomly selected ASCE transcripts; Krippendorff’s α was 0.77 overall, 0.80 for clinical skills, and 0.70 for communication and attitude skills. Adding GPT-4.1 as an evaluator reduced α by 0.02, and its scores did not differ significantly from those of individual experts. Internal consistency was 0.67 across 10 stations and was projected to approach 0.80 with 20 stations.
CONCLUSIONS
Scores from an examination delivered and scored by AI were associated with performance on a national high-stakes OSCE, with minimal center-level variation, tentative agreement among expert raters, and automated scores that aligned with expert ratings. These results support AI delivery and scoring of clinical examinations, with expert review of automated scores.
Description
In what is, to our knowledge, the first prospective multicenter study to evaluate a clinical examination delivered and scored by AI against an independent national OSCE, 588 final-year medical students across six French medical schools completed an AI-Standardized Clinical Examination before the independent national OSCE. Scores correlated with national OSCE performance (Spearman’s ρ, 0.57), with negligible variation between centers, supporting AI-standardized assessment at scale.
