Cited by 64Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInnovations in Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Education

ChatGPT to generate clinical vignettes for teaching and multiple-choice questions for assessment: A randomized controlled experiment

Coşkun, Özlem, Kıyak, Yavuz Selim, Budakoğlu, Işıl İrem·2025·Medical Teacher

Abstract

AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the real-life performance of clinical vignettes and multiple-choice questions generated by using ChatGPT. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled study in an evidence-based medicine training program. We randomly assigned seventy-four medical students to two groups. The ChatGPT group received ill-defined cases generated by ChatGPT, while the control group received human-written cases. At the end of the training, they evaluated the cases by rating 10 statements using a Likert scale. They also answered 15 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) generated by ChatGPT. The case evaluations of the two groups were compared. Some psychometric characteristics (item difficulty and point-biserial correlations) of the test were also reported. RESULTS: > .05). In the test, only six MCQs had acceptable levels (higher than 0.30) of point-biserial correlation, and five items could be considered acceptable in classroom settings. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the quality of the vignettes are comparable to those created by human authors, and some multiple-questions have acceptable psychometric characteristics. ChatGPT has potential in generating clinical vignettes for teaching and MCQs for assessment in medical education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0142159x.2024.2327477

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • A significant breakthrough occurred in November 2022 with the public release of large language models driven by generative AI, signifying a qualitative shift in capability and accessibility.

    “Since then, a significant breakthrough occurred in November 2022 with the public release of large language models (LLMs) driven by generative AI, signifying a qualitative shift in both capability and accessibility [6].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coşkun, Ö., Kıyak, Y. S., & Budakoğlu, I. İ.
Affiliations
  • Department of Medical Education and Informatics, Gazi University
  • Gazi University (TR)
Venue
Medical Teacher
Published
2024-03-13
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
268-274
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
OpenAlex
W4392744531
Cited by
64
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 11
FWCI
6.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, clinical vignettes, multiple-choice questions, artificial intelligence in medical education, evidence-based medicine training, medical students, item difficulty, point-biserial correlation, psychometric properties, automated test generation
MeSH terms
Generative Artificial Intelligence, Adult, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Female, Humans, Male, Psychometrics, Students, Medical, Teaching, Evidence-Based Medicine, Young Adult

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