An interventional study of Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient Training and Conventional Role-Play Training in Dental Education, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Virtual Patient, sponsored by Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy. Completed at 1 site in Vietnam. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-07-07.
Sponsored by Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
This randomized study evaluated whether an artificial intelligence-assisted virtual patient could support third-year dental students in practicing medical and dental history taking. Fifty-six students were assigned to either a Gemini-based virtual-patient training group or a conventional role-play group. Both groups completed four training sessions over 2 weeks using comparable clinical cases, practice time, and feedback criteria. The study compared changes in case-based history-taking competency as well as student satisfaction and perceived usefulness of the training methods.
This single-center, parallel-group randomized educational intervention was conducted among third-year undergraduate dental students at the Faculty of Odonto-Stomatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue, Vietnam.
Eligible students were third-year dental students who had not previously received history-taking training supported by a large language model. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a Gemini-based virtual-patient group or a conventional role-play group. Each group included 28 students.
The Gemini-based virtual patient was developed as a curriculum-bounded learning tool for common oral and maxillofacial clinical scenarios. Its knowledge base included third-year dental curriculum materials, sample medical and dental records, a clinical assessment rubric, and anonymized case scenarios adapted from patient records. The virtual patient was instructed to act only as the patient, disclose information only in response to relevant questions, remain consistent with the predefined case, avoid providing diagnostic guidance during the interview, and provide rubric-aligned feedback after the student completed the encounter.
Students in the virtual-patient group typed questions to the Gemini-based virtual patient, documented the elicited history, and received automated feedback after each case. Students in the conventional role-play group practiced with trained role-players or faculty members using standardized case scripts and the same feedback criteria. Both groups completed four sessions over 2 weeks, with each session lasting approximately 30 to 45 minutes. The groups received comparable scheduled practice time, clinical topics, number of cases, and feedback criteria.
The primary outcome was the change in case-based clinical history-taking competency score from baseline to postintervention assessment. Competency was assessed using five clinical scenarios representing common conditions in the third-year dental curriculum. The possible score range was 0 to 10 points. Each assessment was independently scored by two faculty assessors who were blinded to group allocation and questionnaire responses.
Secondary outcomes included student satisfaction and perceived effectiveness of the training method. Satisfaction covered ease of use, naturalness of interaction, willingness to recommend the method, and diversity of clinical conditions. Perceived effectiveness included self-directed learning, interest in learning, communication and feedback skills, question phrasing, systematic and logical history taking, and stress during history-taking practice. All questionnaire items used a 5-point Likert scale.
243 studies on the registry are indexed under Language; 76 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 56 is below the median of 65 across 158 interventional studies indexed under Language.
Browse Language studies →Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy is the lead sponsor of 13 studies on the registry; 1 is open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Participants received Gemini-based artificial intelligence virtual-patient training for dental history taking. They completed four training sessions over 2 weeks using curriculum-bounded clinical cases and automated rubric-aligned feedback.
Behavioral: Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient Training
Participants received conventional role-play training for dental history taking. They completed four training sessions over 2 weeks using comparable clinical cases, practice time, and rubric-guided feedback.
Behavioral: Conventional Role-Play Training
Students completed four 30- to 45-minute history-taking training sessions over 2 weeks using a Gemini-based artificial intelligence virtual patient. Students typed questions, documented elicited medical and dental history, and received automated rubric-aligned feedback after each simulated patient encounter. The virtual patient used predefined curriculum-based case information and disclosed information only in response to relevant student questions.
Students completed four 30- to 45-minute history-taking training sessions over 2 weeks with trained role-players or faculty members using standardized case scripts. Students practiced eliciting medical and dental history and received feedback guided by the same assessment rubric used in the virtual-patient group.
Change in Case-Based Clinical History-Taking Competency Score
Change from baseline to postintervention in the composite case-based clinical history-taking competency score. Competency was assessed using five clinical scenarios representing common conditions in the third-year dental curriculum. Scores ranged from 0 to 10 points, with higher scores indicating better history-taking-related clinical competency. Each assessment was independently scored by two faculty assessors who were blinded to study-group allocation.
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after completion of the 2-week training intervention
Student Satisfaction With the Training Method
Student satisfaction was assessed immediately after training using four individual 5-point Likert-scale items: ease of use, naturalness of interaction, willingness to recommend the training method, and diversity of clinical conditions. Each item was analyzed separately. Scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.
Time frame: Immediately after completion of the 2-week training intervention
Perceived Effectiveness of the Training Method
Perceived effectiveness was assessed immediately after training using six individual 5-point Likert-scale items: self-directed learning after class, interest in learning, communication skills and ability to receive feedback, question phrasing and expression, systematic and logical history taking, and stress during history-taking practice. Each item was analyzed separately. Scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater perceived effectiveness.
Time frame: Immediately after completion of the 2-week training intervention
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy