Dental EducationNCT07897604
AI-Generated Explanations and Dental Students' Clinical Decision-Making
A study testing Correct AI-Generated Explanation and Misleading AI-Generated Explanation in people with Dental Education and Clinical Decision-making, run by Jordan University of Science and Technology at 1 site in Jordan.
Trial summary
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… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Dental Education, Clinical Decision-making, Artificial Intelligence
- What is being tested?
- Correct AI-Generated Explanation and Misleading AI-Generated Explanation
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 225 participants
- Where
- 1 siteJordan
- Study dates
- 1 Jun 2026to 10 Jun 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Fourth-year dental students enrolled at Jordan University of Science and Technology
- Had commenced clinical training
- Aged 18 years or older
- Willing to participate and provide electronic informed consent
- Able to complete the online assessment independently
Who cannot join
- Students from other academic years or programs
- Incomplete study responses
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Impact of AI-Generated Explanations on Clinical Decision-Making Among Undergraduate Dental Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial
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.
- Being tested
- Correct AI-Generated Explanation, Misleading AI-Generated Explanation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Correct AI-Generated ExplanationBehavioural
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.
Misleading AI-Generated ExplanationBehavioural
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control Group | No intervention | 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 |
| Correct AI-Explanation Group | Experimental | 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 Receives: Behavioral: Correct AI-Generated Explanation |
| Misleading AI-Explanation Group | Experimental | 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. Receives: Behavioral: Misleading AI-Generated Explanation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
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.
Measured: During the 60-minute study assessment
Secondary outcomes (3)
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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: During the 60-minute study assessment
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Oct 2026
- Study start1 Jun 2026
- Primary completion10 Jun 2026
- Study completion10 Jun 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Dental EducationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 225 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Jordan University of Science and Technology
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07897604
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 334-2026
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 19 Oct 2026
- Last updated
- 27 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: dataset will not be publicly shared because of participant confidentiality and institutional restrictions.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Impact of AI-Generated Explanations on Clinical Decision-Making Among Undergraduate Dental Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07897604
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 334-2026
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 225 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Jordan University of Science and TechnologyUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 10 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 10 Jun 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Oct 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control Group | No intervention | –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 |
| Correct AI-Explanation Group | Experimental | Behavioral: Correct AI-Generated ExplanationParticipants 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 |
| Misleading AI-Explanation Group | Experimental | Behavioral: Misleading AI-Generated ExplanationParticipants 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. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Fourth-year dental students enrolled at Jordan University of Science and Technology
- Had commenced clinical training
- Aged 18 years or older
- Willing to participate and provide electronic informed consent
- Able to complete the online assessment independently
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Students from other academic years or programs
- Incomplete study responses
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Correct AI-Generated ExplanationParticipants 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. | Behavioural | Correct AI-Explanation Group |
| Misleading AI-Generated ExplanationParticipants 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. | Behavioural | Misleading AI-Explanation Group |
Primary outcome
Proportion of Correct Responses on the 15-Item Clinical Decision-Making Assessment
Time frame: During the 60-minute study 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.
3 secondary outcomes
Response Confidence Score
Time frame: During the 60-minute study assessment
Confidence Calibration by Response Correctness
Time frame: During the 60-minute study assessment
Proportion of Responses Selecting the Predefined Targeted Misleading Answer
Time frame: During the 60-minute study assessment
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 27 Oct 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. dataset will not be publicly shared because of participant confidentiality and institutional restrictions.
Related trials for Dental Education
Not yet recruiting
Individualized Management of Plaque-Related Gingival Inflammation in Routine Dental Practice
Plaque-Induced Gingivitis
Not yet recruiting
WhatsApp Messages to Improve Mothers' Oral Health Knowledge and Children's Toothbrushing
Oral Health, Dental Caries
Not yet recruiting
Effectiveness of Telephonic and Digital Postoperative Follow-up Communication Strategies on Patient Compliance, Clinical Recovery, and Quality of Life After Dental Extraction
Tooth Extraction, Postoperative Care
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Effect of Dental Education Duration on Halitosis and Associated Factors
Halitosis, Dentistry
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Artificial Intelligence for the Diagnosis of Gingivitis
Gingivitis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Correct AI-Generated Explanation and Misleading AI-Generated Explanation in people with Dental Education and Clinical Decision-making, run by Jordan University of Science and Technology at 1 site in Jordan.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 27 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Jordan. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Proportion of Correct Responses on the 15-Item Clinical Decision-Making Assessment (time frame: During the 60-minute study assessment). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 27 Oct 2026.