ChatGPT in Nuclear Medicine Education
Open accessAbstract
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.
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?
GenAI can 'hallucinate' or fabricate citations, leading to unintentional but damaging academic misconduct.
“Ironically, GenAI can also”
From MAPPING GENERATIVE AI'S ETHICAL ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A FELT-GUIDED SYSTEMATIC REVIEW [PEMETAAN ISU ETIKA GENERATIVE AI DI PENDIDIKAN TINGGI: TINJAUAN SISTEMATIS BERPANDUAN FELT] (2025) · cites this paper as Currie & Barry, 2023
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
GPT-4 is here: what scientists think
Sanderson, K. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00816-5 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Awdry R, Ives B. International predictors of contract cheating in higher education. J Acad Ethics. 2023;21:193-212.
- Stone A. Student perceptions of academic integrity: a qualitative study of under- standing, consequences, and impact. J Acad Ethics. 2022;28:1-19.
- 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.
- Currie G, Rohren E. Social asymmetry and artificial intelligence: the nuclear medi- cine landscape. Semin Nucl Med. 2022;52:498-503.
- 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.
- Alkaissi H, McFarlane SI. Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in sci- entific writing. Cureus. 2023;15:e35179.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Current applications and challenges in large language models for patient care: a systematic review
Busch, F., Hoffmann, L., Rueger, C., van Dijk, E. H., Kader, R., Ortiz-Prado, E., Makowski, M. R., Saba, L., Hadamitzky, M., Kather, J. N., et al. (2025) · Communications Medicine · doi:10.1038/s43856-024-00717-2 · Cited by 358 · see citing works
Batista, J., Mesquita, A., & Carnaz, G. (2024) · Information · doi:10.3390/info15110676 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Samala, A. D., Rawas, S., Wang, T., Reed, J. M., Kim, J., Howard, N.-J., & Ertz, M. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12936-0 · Cited by 229 · see citing works
Cai, L., Msafiri, M. M., & Kangwa, D. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13112-0 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Saihi, A., Ben-Daya, M., Hariga, M., & As'ad, R. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100274 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Daniel, K., Msambwa, M. M., & Wen, Z. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70036 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Currie, G. M., Hawk, K. E., & Rohren, E. M. (2025) · Seminars in Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2024.05.005 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Self-citationKangwa, D., Msafiri, M. M., & Fute, A. (2025) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.70109 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Barus, O., Hidayanto, A. N., & Eitiveni, I. (2025) · Polyglot: Jurnal Ilmiah · doi:10.19166/pji.v21i2.10020 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Lin, A., Chen, Z., Jiang, A., Tang, B., Qi, C., Zhu, L., Mou, W., Gan, W., Zeng, D., Xiao, M., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1097/js9.0000000000003839 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Currie, G., & Barry, K.
- Affiliations
- Charles Sturt University (AU)
- Venue
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
- Publisher
- Society of Nuclear Medicine
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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