Mastering medical terminology with ChatGPT and Termbot
Open accessAbstract
Objective: This study intended to examine whether the utilization of ChatGPT and Termbot enhances students’ understanding of medical terminology. Method: ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, is an AI chatbot designed to generate human-like text responses. Termbot is a chatbot-based learning model focused on improving the acquisition of medical terminology through gamified learning methods. A total of 60 participants participated in this exploratory study, with 40 nursing students assigned to the experimental group and 20 nursing students assigned to the control group. In the experimental group, participants were further divided into two groups of 20, one of which was trained with ChatGPT and the other with Termbot. The participants in the experimental group engaged with the assigned tools for a minimum of 2 hours per week following classroom instruction. The control group used a traditional textbook as their primary learning resource. The study lasted 2 months, after which participants’ learning outcomes were evaluated using an online medical terminology exam post-test. Results: The study found that participants in the experimental group had significantly improved learning outcomes compared to participants in the control group. The results showed a substantial increase in post-test scores for both ChatGPT and Termbot groups, indicating that using these tools as learning assistants can assist students in the learning process. Conclusion: The study has important implications for educators and educational institutions, as it provides evidence for the potential benefits of using ChatGPT and Termbot as tools to improve students’ learning outcomes. The findings intensifyt the importance of embracing new technologies in education and using them to supplement traditional teaching methods.
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.
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?
Personalization (n = 3) by AI chatbots was found to significantly enhance nursing students' learning interest and motivation.
“Additionally, personalization (n = 3) by AI chatbots was found to significantly enhance nursing students’ learning interest and motivation (11, 16).”
From Digital affordances of AI chatbots in nursing education: a systematic review of learning gains and gaps in the evidence (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
The Discussion says ChatGPT personalised questions for nursing students and that both tools encouraged active engagement. The Results suggest the learning aids significantly enhanced motivation, but do not show that personalisation itself significantly improved either motivation or learning interest. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredChatGPT can be used to assist students in their learning process.
“ChatGPT can be used to assist students in their learning process (Hsu, 2024)”
From Current trends and future implications in the utilization of ChatGPT in nursing: a rapid review (2024) · cites this paper as Hsu, 2024
Nursing students who utilized ChatGPT and Termbot in learning medical terminologies performed better than those who studied through textbooks.
“An RCT by Hsu (2024) confirmed that nursing students who utilized ChatGPT and Termbot in learning medical terminologies performed better than those who studied through textbooks.”
From Current trends and future implications in the utilization of ChatGPT in nursing: a rapid review (2024) · cites this paper as Hsu, 2024
One study warned educators about using chatbots, including ChatGPT.
“One study warned educators about using chatbots, including ChatGPT (Hsu, 2024).”
From Current trends and future implications in the utilization of ChatGPT in nursing: a rapid review (2024) · cites this paper as Hsu, 2024
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
Mindset: The New Psychology of Success
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2397 · Cited by 7,804 · see citing works
Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J., et al. (2023) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 · Cited by 4,115 · see citing works
ChatGPT: the future of discharge summaries?
Patel, S. B., & Lam, K. (2023) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(23)00021-3 · Cited by 728 · see citing works
ChatGPT for (Finance) research: The Bananarama Conjecture
Dowling, M., & Lucey, B. M. (2023) · Finance research letters · doi:10.1016/j.frl.2023.103662 · Cited by 611 · see citing works
ChatGPT and the future of medical writing
Biswas, S. (2023) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.223312 · Cited by 571 · see citing works
Digital Literacy: A Review of Literature
Reddy, P., Sharma, B., & Chaudhary, K. (2020) · International Journal of Technoethics · doi:10.4018/ijt.20200701.oa1 · Cited by 398 · see citing works
Can ChatGPT Write a Good Boolean Query for Systematic Review Literature Search?
Wang, S., Scells, H., Koopman, B., & Zuccon, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3539618.3591703 · Cited by 275 · see citing works
Taylor, T. L. (2006) · Games and Culture · doi:10.1177/1555412006292615 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Termbot: A Chatbot-Based Crossword Game for Gamified Medical Terminology Learning
Hsu, M., Chan, T., & Yu, C.-S. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20054185 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Self-citationCan ChatGPT Write a Good Boolean Query for Systematic Review Literature Search?
Wang, S., Scells, H., Koopman, B., & Zuccon, G. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.03495 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Soegoto H (2019) Smartphone usage among college students. Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology 14(3): 1248-1259.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies
Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224 · Cited by 531 · see citing works
The Influence of ChatGPT on Student Engagement: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda
Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Jong, M. S.-Y. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105100 · Cited by 392 · see citing works
Wang, J., & Fan, W. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-04787-y · Cited by 322 · see citing works
RetractedRoles, Users, Benefits, and Limitations of Chatbots in Health Care: Rapid Review (Preprint)
Laymouna, M., Ma, Y., Lessard, D., Schuster, T., Engler, K., & Lebouché, B. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.56930 · Cited by 302 · see citing works
Liu, X., & Zhong, B. (2025) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100741 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: an updated scoping review
Simoni, J., Urtubia-Fernandez, J., Mengual, E., Simoni, D. A., Royo, M., Egaña-Yin, D., Hertog, O. L. A., López-Ortiz, L., Muñoz-Tomás, A., Santiago-Martínez, P., et al. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-08188-2 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Xia, Q., Li, W., Yang, Y., Weng, X., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100455 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
The Impact of <scp>ChatGPT</scp> on Students' Academic Achievement: A Meta‐Analysis
Liu, Z., Zuo, H., & Lu, Y. (2025) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.70096 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
<scp>ChatGPT</scp> in Education: An Effect in Search of a Cause
Weidlich, J., Gašević, D., Drachsler, H., & Kirschner, P. (2025) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.70105 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Current trends and future implications in the utilization of ChatGPT in nursing: a rapid review
Kleib, M., Darko, E. M., Akingbade, O., Kennedy, M., Majekodunmi, P., Nickel, E., & Vogelsang, L. (2024) · International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances · doi:10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100252 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Amankwaa, I., Ekpor, E., Cudjoe, D., Kobiah, E., Fuseini, A.-K. J., Diebieri, M., Gyamfi, S., & Brownie, S. (2025) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106822 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Wei, S., Wei, W., & Zou, G. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1832598 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hsu, M.-H.
- Affiliations
- Chang Gung University of Science and Technology (TW)
- Corresponding author
- Hsu, Mei-Hua
- ORCID
- Hsu, Mei-Hua
- Venue
- Health Education Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-09-04
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 352-358
- ISSN
- 0017-8969 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-8176
- OpenAlex
- W4386421995
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 9
- FWCI
- 1.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Health Education Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, medical terminology, nursing students, educational chatbots, gamified learning, AI-assisted learning, learning outcomes, educational technology
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
