Can ChatGPT pass the life support exams without entering the American heart association course?
Open accessThe 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
ChatGPT has low performance in some topics, such as failing a parasitology exam for Korean medical students.
“Additionally, other concerns include the current inability of ChatGPT to handle images as well as its low performance in some topics (e.g., failure to pass a parasitology exam for Korean medical students), and the issue of possible plagiarism [33,56,57,58,70,75].”
From ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns (2023) · cites this paper as [33]
In “To the Editor” (page unavailable), the paper reports that ChatGPT failed to reach the passing threshold on AHA life-support exams, supporting the general point that it performed poorly on some exams. It does not discuss a parasitology exam or Korean medical students; those details are not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredChatGPT availability can motivate health care education based on the personalized interaction it provides, enabling powerful self-learning and utility as an adjunct in group learning.
“Additionally, ChatGPT availability can be considered as a motivation in health care education based on the personalized interaction it provides, enabling powerful self-learning as well as its utility as an adjunct in group learning [30,33,36,57,58].”
From ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns (2023) · cites this paper as [33]
In “To the Editor” (page not specified), the paper describes ChatGPT as a promising self-learning tool for preparing for life-support exams and notes that it provided explanations for scenario-based answers. It does not address whether personalized interaction motivates health care education or whether ChatGPT is useful as an adjunct in group learning. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredChatGPT currently cannot handle images.
“Additionally, other concerns include the current inability of ChatGPT to handle images as well as its low performance in some topics (e.g., failure to pass a parasitology exam for Korean medical students), and the issue of possible plagiarism [33,56,57,58,70,75].”
From ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns (2023) · cites this paper as [33]
Fijačko et al. (2023) observed that ChatGPT provided insightful explanations in response to life support scenario-based questions.
“Fijačko et al. (2023) observed that ChatGPT provided insightful explanations in response to life support scenario‐based questions”
From A comparative vignette study: Evaluating the potential role of a generative <scp>AI</scp> model in enhancing clinical <scp>decision‐making</scp> in nursing (2025) · cites this paper as Fijačko et al., 2023
ChatGPT use in health care education raises the issue of possible plagiarism.
“Additionally, other concerns include the current inability of ChatGPT to handle images as well as its low performance in some topics (e.g., failure to pass a parasitology exam for Korean medical students), and the issue of possible plagiarism [33,56,57,58,70,75].”
From ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns (2023) · cites this paper as [33]
The paper’s 'To the Editor' section discusses ChatGPT’s life-support exam performance and its inability to interpret images, but does not address plagiarism. Searches for plagiarism and academic-integrity concerns found no relevant passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Health providers can leverage chatbots to provide health information and support to patients.
“This implies that health providers can leverage chatbots to provide health information and support to patients [8,51,52].”
From Investigating the impact of user trust on the adoption and use of ChatGPT: Survey analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [51]
The explanations provided by ChatGPT are more accurate and comprehensive than the explanations of basic principles provided in some standardized higher education exams.
“Research has shown that the explanations provided by ChatGPT are more accurate and comprehensive than the explanations of basic principles provided in some standardized higher education exams [8].”
Studies comparing ChatGPT's performance against previous large language models all indicated a significant improvement in the task of question answering.
“While these studies demonstrated mixed results with regards to ChatGPT’s performance in standardized exams against that of students, studies which specifically compared the model’s performance against that of previous large language models all indicated a significant improvement in the task of question answering20,21,23.”
From Perception, performance, and detectability of conversational artificial intelligence across 32 university courses (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
The literature lacks a systematic study comparing the performance of ChatGPT against that of students across various disciplines at the same institution.
“Despite these examples, the literature still lacks a systematic study comparing the performance of ChatGPT against that of students across various disciplines at the same institution.”
From Perception, performance, and detectability of conversational artificial intelligence across 32 university courses (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 6 · Cited by 206
- Authors
- Fijačko, N., Gosak, L., Štiglic, G., Picard, C. T., & John Douma, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Maribor (SI)
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Fijačko, Nino
- Venue
- Resuscitation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-04
- Volume
- 185
- Pages
- 109732
- ISSN
- 0300-9572 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4319868628
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 84
- FWCI
- 8.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Resuscitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, artificial intelligence, basic life support, advanced cardiac life support, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, scenario-based questions, ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-3
- MeSH terms
- American Heart Association, Clinical Competence, Educational Measurement, Humans
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
