Cited by 208Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Large language models (LLM) and ChatGPT: what will the impact on nuclear medicine be?

Open access
Alberts, Ian L., Mercolli, Lorenzo, Pyka, Thomas, Prenosil, George, Shi, Kuangyu, Rominger, Axel, Afshar-Oromieh, Ali·2023·European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00259-023-06172-w

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The need to rethink and revise current assessment tools in health care education comes in light of ChatGPT's ability to pass reputable exams (e.g., USMLE) and the possibility of ChatGPT misuse resulting in academic dishonesty.

    “The need to rethink and revise the current assessment tools in health care education comes in light of ChatGPT’s ability to pass reputable exams (e.g., USMLE) and possibility of ChatGPT misuse, which would result in academic dishonesty [24,34,58,59,62,76,85,86,87].”

    From ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns (2023) · cites this paper as [86]

    The paper reports that ChatGPT passed or came close to passing all three USMLE parts and discusses the possibility of dishonest use in an online nuclear medicine exam. Its conclusion says clinician education and training will need to adapt, but it does not specifically call for revising current assessment tools; it also finds no present threat to the integrity of online nuclear medicine examinations. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Alberts et al. (2023) emphasized that adversarial testing in medical QA must account for the inherent complexity of the domain, noting that even slight modifications in phrasing can significantly alter clinical interpretations.

    “Alberts et al. (2023) emphasized that adversarial testing in medical QA must account for the inherent complexity of the domain, noting that even slight modifications in phrasing can significantly alter clinical interpretations.”

    From Trustworthy Medical Question Answering: An Evaluation-Centric Survey (2025) · cites this paper as Alberts et al., 2023

    In the paper’s discussion of its nuclear-medicine question test (page unavailable), Alberts et al. describe ChatGPT as context-sensitive and report different, incorrect answers after a question was rephrased. They also discuss adversarial examples and the difficulty of constructing them for LLMs. They do not say that adversarial testing must account for the inherent complexity of medical QA, or establish that slight phrasing changes significantly alter clinical interpretations; their example involved both rephrasing and corrective feedback. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alberts, I. L., Mercolli, L., Pyka, T., Prenosil, G., Shi, K., Rominger, A., & Afshar-Oromieh, A.
Affiliations
University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Alberts, Ian L.
Venue
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published
2023-03-09
Volume
50
Issue
6
Pages
1549-1552
ISSN
  • 1619-7070 (ISSN-L)
  • 1619-7089
OpenAlex
W4323652488
Cited by
207
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 36
FWCI
8.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
large language models, ChatGPT, artificial intelligence, nuclear medicine
MeSH terms
Humans, Nuclear Medicine, Radionuclide Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review