An interventional study of Correct AI-Generated Explanation and Misleading AI-Generated Explanation in Dental Education, Clinical Decision-making and Artificial Intelligence, sponsored by Jordan University of Science and Technology. Completed at 1 site in Jordan. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-27.
Sponsored by Jordan University of Science and Technology · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
This randomized controlled trial evaluated the effect of AI-generated explanations on clinical decision-making among undergraduate dental students. UG dental students were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: a no-explanation control group, a correct AI-explanation group, or a plausible misleading AI-explanation group. All participants completed the same 15 clinical case-based scenario questions and rated their confidence after each response. The primary outcome was clinical decision-making accuracy. Secondary outcomes included confidence and confidence calibration, as well as selection of the predefined incorrect answer supported by the misleading explanation. The study was designed to determine whether correct AI-generated explanations improve performance and whether plausible but misleading explanations can direct students toward specific clinical errors.
Jordan University of Science and Technology is the lead sponsor of 89 studies on the registry; 7 are 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 completed the 15 clinical case-based questions without receiving any accompanying AI-generated explanation. After selecting an answer to each question, they rated their confidence
Participants completed the same 15 clinical case-based questions and, for each question, received an AI-generated explanation supporting the correct answer before selecting their response and rating their confidence
Behavioral: Correct AI-Generated Explanation
Participants completed the same 15 clinical case-based questions and, for each question, received a plausible AI-generated explanation supporting a predefined incorrect answer before selecting their response and rating their confidence.
Behavioral: Misleading AI-Generated Explanation
Participants received an AI-generated explanation supporting the correct answer for each of the 15 clinical case-based questions before selecting their response and rating their confidence. The explanations were reviewed and refined by endodontic academics to ensure factual accuracy and appropriate clinical reasoning.
Participants received a plausible AI-generated explanation supporting a predefined incorrect answer for each of the 15 clinical case-based questions before selecting their response and rating their confidence. The explanations were reviewed and refined by endodontic academics to remain clinically plausible while preserving the underlying error.
Proportion of Correct Responses on the 15-Item Clinical Decision-Making Assessment
Each response to the 15 clinical case-based questions was scored as correct or incorrect. Clinical decision-making accuracy was summarized as the probability or proportion of correct responses; participant-level performance was also summarized as the total number of correct responses out of 15.
Time frame: During the 60-minute study assessment
Response Confidence Score
Confidence was rated after each clinical case-based question on a three-point scale, with higher scores indicating greater confidence in the selected response.
Time frame: During the 60-minute study assessment
Confidence Calibration by Response Correctness
Confidence calibration was assessed by comparing mean confidence ratings between correct and incorrect responses within each study group.
Time frame: During the 60-minute study assessment
Proportion of Responses Selecting the Predefined Targeted Misleading Answer
For each of the 15 clinical case-based questions, selection of the predefined incorrect answer specifically supported by the misleading AI-generated explanation was recorded as a binary outcome (selected/not selected). The outcome was summarized as the probability or proportion of responses selecting the targeted misleading answer.
Time frame: During the 60-minute study assessment
Plan to share: No — dataset will not be publicly shared because of participant confidentiality and institutional restrictions.
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Oct 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.
Jordan University of Science and Technology