CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 135Academic integrity and plagiarismArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ChatGPT in medical imaging higher education

Currie, G., Singh, C., Nelson, T., Nabasenja, C., Al-Hayek, Y., Spuur, K.·2023·Radiography
DOI 10.1016/j.radi.2023.05.011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction Academic integrity among radiographers and nuclear medicine technologists/scientists in both higher education and scientific writing has been challenged by advances in artificial intelligence (AI). The recent release of ChatGPT, a chatbot powered by GPT-3.5 capable of producing accurate and human-like responses to questions in real-time, has redefined the boundaries of academic and scientific writing. These boundaries require objective evaluation.Method ChatGPT was tested against six subjects across the first three years of the medical radiation science undergraduate course for both exams (n = 6) and written assignment tasks (n = 3). ChatGPT submissions were marked against standardised rubrics and results compared to student cohorts. Submissions were also evaluated by Turnitin for similarity and AI scores.Results ChatGPT powered by GPT-3.5 performed below the average student performance in all written tasks with an increasing disparity as subjects advanced. ChatGPT performed better than the average student in foundation or general subject examinations where shallow responses meet learning outcomes. For discipline specific subjects, ChatGPT lacked the depth, breadth, and currency of insight to provide pass level answers.Conclusion ChatGPT simultaneously poses a risk to academic integrity in writing and assessment while affording a tool for enhanced learning environments. These risks and benefits are likely to be restricted to learning outcomes of lower taxonomies. Both risks and benefits are likely to be constrained by higher order taxonomies.Implications for practice ChatGPT powered by GPT3.5 has limited capacity to support student cheating, introduces errors and fabricated information, and is readily identified by software as AI generated. Lack of depth of insight and appropriateness for professional communication also limits capacity as a learning enhancement tool.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.radi.2023.05.011

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Currie, G., Singh, C., Nelson, T., Nabasenja, C., Al-Hayek, Y., & Spuur, K.
Affiliations
Charles Sturt University (AU)
Corresponding author
Currie, G.
ORCID
Venue
Radiography
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-07
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
792-799
ISSN
1078-8174 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.radi.2023.05.011
OpenAlex
W4379136378
Cited by
128
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 26
FWCI
31.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Radiography (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, academic integrity, artificial intelligence in education, radiographer training, nuclear medicine technologists, academic dishonesty, written assessment, AI-generated text detection, Turnitin, GPT-3.5, higher education
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Diagnostic Imaging, Humans, Learning, Radiography, Software

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