AI MedEd ObservatoryWhat Can AI Do in Medical Education? An observatory

Evidence, prompts, checklists, and practical interpretation for assessment, feedback, scoring, and teaching materials.

Mantra: Evidence before automation. Judgment before adoption.Base path /ai-meded-observatory

What can AI do for scoring videos?

Current evidence suggests AI may help produce early drafts and structured alternatives, but outputs require expert review for accuracy, educational fit, and defensible use.

Evidence summary

Selected studies suggest feasibility is often easier to show than validity. Reported success tends to depend on constrained prompts, source content, and careful human revision.

Practical starting points

  • Use as a drafting assistant rather than a replacement for educators
  • Pair with local review criteria and blueprint alignment checks
  • Prefer low-stakes or formative workflows unless stronger evidence exists

Last updated: June 27, 2026

Collaboration

Planning a study related to this question?

If you have a mature study idea, drafted protocol, or ethics-stage project related to this question or another gap in AI and medical education, you can share a collaboration proposal. Please include enough detail to assess fit, feasibility, and possible collaboration. Not every proposal will lead to collaboration.

Share a collaboration proposal

Related articles

Selected studies

2026Other

Automated scoring of student videos in medical education: a comparison between a large language model and expert evaluation

Yavuz Selim Kıyak, Özlem Ülkü Bulut, Özlem Coşkun, Işıl İrem Budakoğlu · Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education

This study shows that Gemini 2.5 Pro did not reliably match expert scoring of 139 medical student EBM video presentations. A rubric-only prompt over-scored students, while a “critical expert” prompt under-scored them, showing that prompt strategy changed both the size and direction of scoring bias.

Related subquestions: What can AI do for scoring videos?

2025Original research

Is AI the future of evaluation in medical education?? AI vs. human evaluation in objective structured clinical examination

Murat Tekin, Mustafa Onur Yurdal, Çetin Toraman, Güneş Korkmaz, İbrahim Uysal · BMC Medical Education

This cross-sectional study compared OSCE scores from three human evaluators and two AI systems, ChatGPT-4o and Gemini Flash 1.5, for 196 pre-clinical medical students performing four clinical skills. AI scores were generally higher than human scores, with better alignment on visually observable steps than on auditory or communication-dependent criteria.

Related subquestions: What can AI do for scoring videos?

Published prompts

Related prompt architectures

No published prompts are linked yet.

Practical guides

Linked guides

No guides are linked yet.