An Investigation into the Usefulness of AI in the Creation of Curriculum Specific Case Studies

Recent emergence of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven platforms has provided opportunity for developing new pedagogical tools within our educational system. Currently, implementation of AI-supported learning has focused on student usage. We believe AI has additional functionality within education and so we focused on AI driven content creation by and for the educator. The concept of AI as a teaching tool has been touched upon, but there is currently little evidence focused on how AI outputs aid instructors in production and delivery of teaching materials. Creation, development, and administration of educational material requires expert knowledge, focused time, and ample resources. AI could serve as a beneficial tool for instructors by reducing production time of educational content whilst maintaining high-quality, accurate material. Therefore, to address this unmet need, we developed an online web application to aid educators in creating novel, usable content. Our initial study is centered on the AI development of case studies to be used in clinical education. Through the combination of topic-specific, professor-supplied materials and a modifiable template, we created an AI-based web application that has broad application across multiple disciplines. To test the efficacy, accuracy, and usability of our outputs, we are: i) comparing various iterations of fillable templates for AI processing, ii) surveying professors about accuracy of the AI-generated outputs, and iii) collecting professor feedback on classroom application. We hypothesize that our AI-based web application will provide educators with a fast and convenient way to generate notes-specific material, particularly case studies, to meet their individual lecture needs without compromising on quality or accuracy of material. This abstract was presented at the American Physiology Summit 2025 and is only available in HTML format. There is no downloadable file or PDF version. The Physiology editorial board was not involved in the peer review process.