Cited by 59Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningAnatomy and Medical Technology

Using a Machine Learning Architecture to Create an AI-Powered Chatbot for Anatomy Education

Open access
Li, Yik Sum, Lam, Cynthia Sin Nga, See, Christopher·2021·Medical Science Educator

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence chatbots allow interactive dialogue-driven teaching of medical sciences. Open-source tools allow educators to adapt existing technology to create intelligent learning systems. We utilised an open-source machine learning architecture and fine-tuned it with a customised database to train an AI dialogue system to teach medical students anatomy.

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/s40670-021-01405-9

Cites

5 of 5 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 use of chatbots has been increasingly reported; Gorashi et al. analyzed their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in this context; chatbots have assisted students in history-taking practice and preparing for objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE); in one study comparing the use of ChatGPT with a traditional textbook for learning medical terminology, ChatGPT provided

    “The use of chatbots has been increasingly reported [40, 112–115]. Gorashi et al. analyzed their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in this context [107]. Chatbots have assisted students in history-taking practice [116] and preparing for objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) [117]. In one study comparing the use of ChatGPT with a traditional textbook for learning medical”

    From Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: an updated scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [112]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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
Li, Y. S., Lam, C. S. N., & See, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
See, Christopher
Venue
Medical Science Educator
Published
2021-09-21
Volume
31
Issue
6
Pages
1729-1730
ISSN
2156-8650 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3199342368
Cited by
59
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 3
FWCI
2.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Science Educator (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Anatomy and Medical Technology
Keywords
chatbots, anatomy education, medical education, dialogue systems, fine-tuning, open-source machine learning, conversational AI, medical students

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