Cited by 47Academic integrity and plagiarismArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in Education

ChatGPT in Nuclear Medicine Education

Open access
Currie, Geoffrey, Barry, Kym·2023·Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Abstract

Academic integrity has been challenged by artificial intelligence algorithms in teaching institutions, including those providing nuclear medicine training. The GPT 3.5–powered ChatGPT chatbot released in late November 2022 has emerged as an immediate threat to academic and scientific writing. Methods: Both examinations and written assignments for nuclear medicine courses were tested using ChatGPT. Included was a mix of core theory subjects offered in the second and third years of the nuclear medicine science course. Long-answer–style questions (8 subjects) and calculation-style questions (2 subjects) were included for examinations. ChatGPT was also used to produce responses to authentic writing tasks (6 subjects). ChatGPT responses were evaluated by Turnitin plagiarism-detection software for similarity and artificial intelligence scores, scored against standardized rubrics, and compared with the mean performance of student cohorts. Results: ChatGPT powered by GPT 3.5 performed poorly in the 2 calculation examinations (overall, 31.7% compared with 67.3% for students), with particularly poor performance in complex-style questions. ChatGPT failed each of 6 written tasks (overall, 38.9% compared with 67.2% for students), with worsening performance corresponding to increasing writing and research expectations in the third year. In the 8 examinations, ChatGPT performed better than students for general or early subjects but poorly for advanced and specific subjects (overall, 51% compared with 57.4% for students). Conclusion: Although ChatGPT poses a risk to academic integrity, its usefulness as a cheating tool can be constrained by higher-order taxonomies. Unfortunately, the constraints to higher-order learning and skill development also undermine potential applications of ChatGPT for enhancing learning. There are several potential applications of ChatGPT for teaching nuclear medicine students.

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 · 10.2967/jnmt.123.265844

Cites

1 of 1 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Awdry R, Ives B. International predictors of contract cheating in higher education. J Acad Ethics. 2023;21:193-212.
  2. Stone A. Student perceptions of academic integrity: a qualitative study of under- standing, consequences, and impact. J Acad Ethics. 2022;28:1-19.
  3. Eysenbach G. The role of ChatGPT, generative language models, and artificial intel- ligence in medical education: a conversation with ChatGPT and a call for papers. JMIR Med Educ. 2023;6;9:e46885.
  4. Currie G, Rohren E. Social asymmetry and artificial intelligence: the nuclear medi- cine landscape. Semin Nucl Med. 2022;52:498-503.
  5. Kung TH, Cheatham M, Medenilla A, et al. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digit Health. 2023;2:e0000198.
  6. Alkaissi H, McFarlane SI. Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in sci- entific writing. Cureus. 2023;15:e35179.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Currie, G., & Barry, K.
Affiliations
Charles Sturt University (AU)
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
Published
2023-07-11
Volume
51
Issue
3
Pages
247-254
ISSN
  • 0091-4916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-5675
OpenAlex
W4383896353
Cited by
47
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 8
FWCI
11.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, academic integrity, nuclear medicine education, artificial intelligence in education, academic dishonesty, plagiarism detection, Turnitin, student performance, higher-order thinking skills, writing assignments, examinations
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Learning, Nuclear Medicine, Radionuclide Imaging, 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