BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of implementing Chester, a novel web-based chest X-ray (CXR) interpretation artificial intelligence (AI) tool, in the medical education curriculum and explore its effect on the diagnostic performance of undergraduate medical students. METHODS: Third-year trainees were randomized in experimental (N=16) and control (N=16) groups and stratified for age, gender, confidence in CXR interpretation, and prior experience. Participants filled a pre-intervention survey, a test exam (Exam1), a final exam (Exam2), and a post-intervention survey. The experimental group was allowed to use Chester during Exam1 while the control group could not. All participants were forbidden from using any resource during Exam2. The diagnostic interpretation of a fellowship-trained chest radiologist was used as standard of reference. Chester's performance itself on Exam1 was 60%. A five-point Likert scale was used to assess students' perceived confidence before/after the exams as well as Chester's perceived usefulness. RESULTS: Using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), it was found that Chester did not have a statistically significant impact on the experimental group's diagnostic performance nor confidence level when compared to the control group. The experimental group rated Chester's usefulness at 3.7/5, its convenience at 4.25/5, and their likelihood to reuse it at 4.1/5. CONCLUSION: Our experience highlights the interest of medical students in using AI tools as educational resources. While the results of the pilot project are inconclusive for now, they demonstrate proof of concept for a repeat experiment with a larger sample and establish a robust methodology to evaluate AI tools in radiological education. Finally, we believe that additional research should be focused on the applications of AI in medical education so students understand this new technology for themselves and given the growing trend of remote learning.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The Institutional Review Board of the University of Montreal gave ethical approval for this work

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.