AI vs professors: who grades better in physiotherapy?

NCT ID NCT07677202

Not yet recruiting Knowledge-focused Sponsor: Neuron, Spain Source: ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

First seen Jun 30, 2026 · Last updated Jul 01, 2026 · Updated 1 time

Summary

This study compares how well large language models (AI like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini) can grade written clinical-reasoning exams from third-year physiotherapy students, compared to faculty assessments. Researchers will have AI and human teachers score the same anonymized exams using a standard rubric, then measure how much their scores agree. The goal is to see if AI can reliably support grading in health education, potentially saving time and reducing variability between human graders.

What this could mean

Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only — not medical advice or a prediction.

Active substance: Large language models (AI like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini)
What this could lead to: If successful, AI could help grade exams in health education, freeing up faculty time and providing consistent feedback.
What could go wrong: This is a small, early-stage study with 65 exams. AI may not match human judgment on complex reasoning, and results may not apply to other subjects or schools.

This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.

Get updates

Get notified about this study

Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE are added.

Our safety recommendation!

By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use

As listed by the trial registrant

The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.

ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PHYSICAL THERAPY EDUCATION

Contacts and locations

Locations

Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle

Madrid, Madrid, 28023, Spain

More trials for these conditions

Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.