ChatGPT and medical education: a double-edged sword
Open accessAbstract
ChatGPT has gained attention worldwide. In the medical education field, ChatGPT, or any similar large language model, provides a convenient way for students to access information and practice their skills. ChatGPT can simulate patient interactions, allowing students to practice their diagnostic and communication skills in a safe and controlled environment. ChatGPT can also answer questions and provide explanations for complex medical concepts. There have been attempts involving ChatGPT to assist researchers in writing journal articles. Due to its capabilities, ChatGPT has the potential to be abused and sparking ethical concerns. Unwise researchers can now employ ChatGPT to write academic articles. Similarly, irresponsible students, might utilize ChatGPT to cheat during exams. We investigated whether ChatGPT, in its current state, can answer Indonesian medical doctor examination problems. Among the 3 problems that we have picked, ChatGPT can only correctly answer 1 question. We also examine whether ChatGPT-generated abstracts can fool professionals and educators. We have brought 6 abstracts, 3 of which are taken from actual published papers, while the other 3 were generated by ChatGPT. We recruited 12 participants with either a medical doctor (M.D.), a doctorate (Ph.D.), or an M.D., Ph.D. degree from various institutions in Indonesia. Surprisingly, 4 of the participants couldn't guess a single abstract correctly, 6 could only identify 1 abstract accurately, one correctly guessed 2 abstracts, and one correctly identified 3 abstracts. Therefore, it is safe to say that ChatGPT, in its current state, has been able to fool professionals and educators.
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?
The need to rethink and revise current assessment tools in health care education comes in light of ChatGPT's ability to pass reputable exams (e.g., USMLE) and the possibility of ChatGPT misuse resulting in academic dishonesty.
“The need to rethink and revise the current assessment tools in health care education comes in light of ChatGPT’s ability to pass reputable exams (e.g., USMLE) and possibility of ChatGPT misuse, which would result in academic dishonesty [24,34,58,59,62,76,85,86,87].”
From ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns (2023) · cites this paper as [76]
The Introduction raises the possibility of cheating on exams, and “Are They Still Needed?” recommends appropriate exam design and cautions against online or take-home exams. But the paper does not establish that ChatGPT passed the USMLE: its own medical-exam test found only one correct answer out of three (C. Problem 3). (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredScientists have tried to use ChatGPT to write scientific manuscripts with varying success.
“Scientists have tried to use ChatGPT to write scientific manuscripts with varying success (12, 18)”
From Integrating AI in medical education: embracing ethical usage and critical understanding (2023) · cites this paper as [12]
Medical education can benefit significantly from AI-driven tools like ChatGPT.
“Medical education can benefit significantly from AI-driven tools like ChatGPT.”
ChatGPT's ability to explain intricate medical terminology in a comprehensible manner aids in knowledge acquisition, fostering continuous learning and improving medical literacy.
“Its ability to explain intricate medical terminology in a comprehensible manner aids in knowledge acquisition, fostering continuous learning and improving medical literacy [6,9,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23].”
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 25 · Cited by 63
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Frye, B. L. (2022). ChatGPT Talks About Animal Rights. Available at SSRN.
- Exclusive: Hindawi and Wiley to retract over 500 papers linked to peer review rings. (2022). Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/09/28/exclusive-hindawi-and-wiley-to-retract-over- 500-papers-linked-to-peer-review-rings/ (accessed on 17 December 2022).
- Exclusive: Elsevier retracting 500 papers for shoddy peer review. (2022). Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/10/28/exclusive-elsevier-retracting-500-papers-for-shoddy- peer-review/ (accessed on 17 December 2022).
- Exclusive: Hindawi and Wiley to retract over 500 papers linked to peer review rings. (2022). Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/09/28/exclusive-hindawi-and-wiley-to-retract-over- 500-papers-linked-to-peer-review-rings/ (accessed on 17 December 2022).
- More than 300 at once: Publisher retracts entire conference proceedings. (2022). Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/04/20/more-than-300-at-once-publisher-retracts-entire- conference-proceedings/ (accessed on 17 December 2022).
- 'Our deepest apology': Journal retracts 30 likely paper mill articles after investigation published by Retraction Watch. (2022). Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/07/05/our- deepest-apology-journal-retracts-30-likely-paper-mill-articles-after-investigation-published-by- retraction-watch/ (accessed on 17 December 2022).
- Authors
- Khairatun Hisan, U., & Miftahul Amri, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Pedagogy and Education Science
- Published
- 2023-03-11
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 01
- Pages
- 71-89
- ISSN
- 2962-1763 (ISSN-L)
- 2962-5777
- OpenAlex
- W4366281676
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 22
- FWCI
- 2.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Pedagogy and Education Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, medical education, academic integrity, cheating, AI-generated abstracts, peer review, AI-generated research, ethical considerations
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
