ChatGPT in Medical Education and Research: A Boon or a Bane?
Open accessAbstract
Science fiction literature and films no longer focus on artificial intelligence. In contrast to all other aspects of life, medical education and clinical patient care have been progressing slowly. Recently, a lot of text from the internet was used to construct and train chatbots, especially ChatGPT. The language model ChatGPT, created by OpenAI, has emerged as a useful resource for medical research and education. It has proven to be a useful tool for researchers, students, and medical professionals because of its capacity to produce human-like answers to challenging medical queries. However, using ChatGPT also has significant drawbacks. The possibility of erroneous or biased information being spread, which could have negative effects on patient care, is one of the key worries. Moreover, the overreliance on technology in medical education could also lead to a decline in critical thinking and clinical decision-making skills. Overall, ChatGPT has the potential to be a boon to medical education and research, but its use must be accompanied by caution and critical evaluation.
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?
Excessive use of GAI could hinder critical thinking and decision-making, risking dependency on GAI for knowledge acquisition.
“Excessive use of GAI could hinder critical thinking and decision-making, risking dependency on GAI for knowledge acquisition, which is findings in medical students [8] and nurse students [9, 23].”
From Generative artificial intelligence in physiotherapy education: great potential amidst challenges- a qualitative interview study (2025) · cites this paper as [9]
The Review (page not provided) warns that ChatGPT may lead medical students to make clinical judgments without using their own judgment and describes technology dependence as a risk. This supports the concern, but the paper presents it as a potential risk, not an observed finding from a study of medical students. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOverreliance on GAI in medical education poses a risk of declining critical thinking and clinical decision-making skills.
“Overreliance on GAI in medical education poses a risk of declining critical thinking and clinical decision-making skills. 9”
GAI poses risks of incorrect or misleading information because of how it processes existing data.
“Additionally, GAI poses risks of incorrect or misleading information because of how it processes existing data [9].”
From Generative artificial intelligence in physiotherapy education: great potential amidst challenges- a qualitative interview study (2025) · cites this paper as [9]
This issue may stem from the knowledge gap between real and AI-generated information.
“This issue may stem from the knowledge gap between real and AI-generated information [9].”
From Generative artificial intelligence in physiotherapy education: great potential amidst challenges- a qualitative interview study (2025) · cites this paper as [9]
Previous studies emphasize GAI's role in facilitating information processing, improved access to information, person-centered information delivery, and academic writing improvements in medical education.
“This aligns with previous studies emphasizing GAI’s role in facilitating information processing, improved access to information, person-centered information delivery, and academic writing improvements in medical education [5, 9].”
From Generative artificial intelligence in physiotherapy education: great potential amidst challenges- a qualitative interview study (2025) · cites this paper as [9]
Many teachers continue to use AI tools despite limited prior exposure and structured training, as opportunities for guided practice are currently limited.
“Many teachers continue to use AI tools despite limited prior exposure and structured training, as opportunities for guided practice are currently limited [5–7].”
From Ethical engagement with artificial intelligence in faculty research education: evaluation of the New Knowledge Help (NKH) approach (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
The Review discusses possible uses of ChatGPT by teachers, including grading and teaching assistance, but does not address whether teachers continue using AI despite limited prior exposure or structured training. A search for guided practice and training opportunities found no passage addressing their availability. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFaculty often lack structured training on the effective and ethical use of AI.
“faculty often lack structured training on its effective and ethical use.”
From Ethical engagement with artificial intelligence in faculty research education: evaluation of the New Knowledge Help (NKH) approach (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
The Review discusses how teachers might use ChatGPT and the ethical risks of its use; the Conclusions call for ethical and effective use. Neither section says faculty often lack structured training. Searches for faculty training and educator preparation found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe outcomes, particularly manuscript development and peer education, remain self-reported indicators of early scholarly activities.
“the outcomes, particularly manuscript development and peer education, remain self-reported indicators of early scholarly activities [6].”
From Ethical engagement with artificial intelligence in faculty research education: evaluation of the New Knowledge Help (NKH) approach (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
The Introduction and background discusses ChatGPT-generated papers, and the Review discusses possible uses in medical education and research. Neither reports self-reported outcomes for manuscript development or peer education as indicators of early scholarly activity; searches for those terms found no relevant passage. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAI tools can aid the researcher in collecting relevant research articles, identifying knowledge gaps in the literature, formulating research questions, recommending appropriate statistical methods for the available data, creating a graphical representation of the data, and manuscript writing.
“AI tools can aid the researcher in collecting relevant research articles, identifying the knowledge gaps in the literature, formulating research questions, recommending appropriate statistical methods for the available data, creating a graphical representation of the data, and manuscript writing [32-35].”
From Artificial Intelligence Revolutionizing the Field of Medical Education (2023) · cites this paper as [35]
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
1 retracted
Kumar, Y., Koul, A., Singla, R., & Ijaz, M. F. (2023) · Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing · doi:10.1007/s12652-021-03612-z · Cited by 1,040 · see citing works
RetractedDwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 · Cited by 4,584 · 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
Sallam, M. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11060887 · Cited by 3,126 · cited 1× · see citing works
“· Personalized learning [15]: ChatGPT can be used to create virtual tutors or assistants who can assist students with their homework and ask questions.”
BackgroundGilson, A., Safranek, C. W., Huang, T., Socrates, V., Chi, L., Taylor, R. A., & Chartash, D. (2023) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/45312 · Cited by 2,078 · see citing works
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.12.23.521610 · Cited by 1,099 · see citing works
ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove
Stokel-Walker, C. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z · Cited by 868 · see citing works
Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing?
Salvagno, M., Taccone, F. S., & Gerli, A. G. (2023) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-023-04380-2 · Cited by 827 · see citing works
Haleem, A., Javaid, M., & Singh, R. P. (2022) · BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations · doi:10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100089 · Cited by 694 · see citing works
ChatGPT - Reshaping medical education and clinical management
Khan, R. A., Jawaid, M., Khan, A. R., & Sajjad, M. (2023) · Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences · doi:10.12669/pjms.39.2.7653 · Cited by 628 · see citing works
A Conversation on Artificial Intelligence, Chatbots, and Plagiarism in Higher Education
King, M. R., & chatGPT (2023) · Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering · doi:10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 · Cited by 602 · 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
ChatGPT makes medicine easy to swallow: an exploratory case study on simplified radiology reports
Jeblick, K., Schachtner, B., Dexl, J., Mittermeier, A., Stüber, A. T., Topalis, J., Weber, T., Wesp, P., Sabel, B. O., Ricke, J., et al. (2023) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-023-10213-1 · Cited by 549 · see citing works
Hassani, H., & Silva, E. S. (2023) · Big Data and Cognitive Computing · doi:10.3390/bdcc7020062 · Cited by 401 · see citing works
ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment
Kitamura, F. C. (2023) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.230171 · Cited by 317 · see citing works
The future of medical education and research: Is ChatGPT a blessing or blight in disguise?
Arif, T. B., Munaf, U., & Ul-Haque, I. (2023) · Medical Education Online · doi:10.1080/10872981.2023.2181052 · Cited by 317 · see citing works
Haque, M. U., Dharmadasa, I., Sworna, Z. T., Rajapakse, R. N., & Ahmad, H. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.05856 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
Rapamycin in the context of Pascal's Wager: generative pre-trained transformer perspective
Generative Pre-trained Transformer, C., & Zhavoronkov, A. (2022) · Oncoscience · doi:10.18632/oncoscience.571 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
Dahmen, J., Kayaalp, M. E., Ollivier, M., Pareek, A., Hirschmann, M. T., Karlsson, J., & Winkler, P. W. (2023) · Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy · doi:10.1007/s00167-023-07355-6 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Use of Google Translate in medical communication: evaluation of accuracy
Patil, S. U., & Davies, P. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g7392 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Red teaming ChatGPT via Jailbreaking: Bias, Robustness, Reliability and Toxicity
Zhuo, T. Y., Huang, Y., Chen, C., & Xing, Z. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.12867 · Cited by 164 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, ChatGPT's warnings about difficulties and risks inevitably prompt a lot of inquiries, including pertinent questions about medical ethics [37,38], data security and privacy, as well as inaccurate or deceptive information that could harm patients.”
BackgroundDas, D., Kumar, N., Longjam, L. A., Sinha, R., Deb Roy, A., Mondal, H., & Gupta, P. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.36034 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Language Translation Apps in Health Care Settings: Expert Opinion
Panayiotou, A., Gardner, A., Williams, S., Zucchi, E., Mascitti‐Meuter, M., Goh, A., You, E. C., Chong, T. W. H., LoGiudice, D., Lin, X., et al. (2018) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/11316 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
The opportunities and pitfalls of ChatGPT in clinical and translational medicine
Baumgartner, C. (2023) · Clinical and Translational Medicine · doi:10.1002/ctm2.1206 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
ChatGPT Makes Medicine Easy to Swallow: An Exploratory Case Study on Simplified Radiology Reports
Jeblick, K., Schachtner, B., Dexl, J., Mittermeier, A., Stüber, A. T., Topalis, J., Weber, T., Wesp, P., Sabel, B., Ricke, J., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.14882 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Zielinski, C., Winker, M. A., Aggarwal, R., Ferris, L. E., Heinemann, M., Lapeña, J. F., Pai, S. A., Ing, E., & Citrome, L. (2023) · National Medical Journal of India · doi:10.21608/aeji.2023.282936 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence Discusses the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Translational Medicine
Mann, D. L. (2023) · JACC: Basic to Translational Science · doi:10.1016/j.jacbts.2023.01.001 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Do ChatGPT and Other AI Chatbots Pose a Cybersecurity Risk?
Sebastian, G. (2023) · International Journal of Security and Privacy in Pervasive Computing · doi:10.4018/ijsppc.320225 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Zielinski, C., Winker, M. A., Aggarwal, R., Ferris, L. E., Heinemann, M., Lapeña, J. F. F., Pai, S. A., Ing, E. B., & Citrome, L. (2023) · The National Medical Journal of India · doi:10.25259/nmji_365_23 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Zaitsu, W., & Jin, M. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288453 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Usage of Multilingual Mobile Translation Applications in Clinical Settings
Albrecht, U.-V., Behrends, M., Matthies, H. K., & von Jan, U. (2013) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.2268 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Design for risk control: The role of usability engineering in the management of use-related risks
van der Peijl, J., Klein, J., Grass, C., et al. (2012) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2012.03.006 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Daily briefing: ChatGPT listed as author on research papers
Graham, F. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00188-w · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Ali, M. J., & Djalilian, A. R. (2023) · The Ocular Surface · doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2023.04.001 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
English and Mandarin translation using Google Translate software for pre-anaesthetic consultation.
Beh, T., & Canty, D. J. (2015) · PubMed · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Chandrasekar, H., Gesundheit, N., Nevins, A., Pompei, P., Bruce, J. S., & Merrell, S. B. (2018) · Advances in Medical Education and Practice · doi:10.2147/amep.s155481 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Xu, X., Chen, Y., & Miao, J. (2024) · Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions · doi:10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.6 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence Revolutionizing the Field of Medical Education
Narayanan, S., Ramakrishnan, R., Durairaj, E., & Das, A. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.49604 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Li, J., Zong, H., Wu, E., Wu, R., Peng, Z., Zhao, J., Yang, L., Xie, H., & Shen, B. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05738-y · 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
Sauder, M., Tritsch, T., Rajput, V., Schwartz, G., & Shoja, M. M. (2024) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.51961 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Ajalo, E., Mukunya, D., Nantale, R., Kayemba, F., Pangholi, K., Babuya, J., Langoya Akuu, S., Namiiro, A. M., Nsubuga, Y. B., Mpagi, J. L., et al. (2025) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313776 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Lindbäck, Y., Schröder, K., Engström, T., Valeskog, K., & Sonesson, S. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-07106-w · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Hu, Y., Liu, J., & Jiang, W. (2025) · Renal Failure · doi:10.1080/0886022x.2025.2555686 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Scherr, R., Spina, A., Dao, A., Andalib, S., Halaseh, F. F., Blair, S., Wiechmann, W., & Rivera, R. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/66478 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Lindbäck, Y., Valeskog, K., Schröder, K., & Sonesson, S. (2025) · Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development · doi:10.1177/23821205251378794 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Naeem, N.-I.-K., Naeem, Z.-E.-F., & Anwer, A. (2026) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-026-09405-2
“While these steps strengthen confidence in the findings, the outcomes, particularly manuscript development and peer education, remain self-reported indicators of early scholarly activities [6].”
- Authors
- Jeyaraman, M., K, S. P., Jeyaraman, N., Nallakumarasamy, A., Yadav, S., & Bondili, S. K.
- Affiliations
- Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Yadav, Sankalp
- Venue
- Cureus
- Published
- 2023-08-29
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e44316-e44316
- ISSN
- 2168-8184 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10536401
- OpenAlex
- W4386245324
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 0.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Cureus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, medical education, medical research, artificial intelligence in healthcare, misinformation, algorithmic bias, critical thinking, clinical decision-making, technology dependence
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
