Cited by 41Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in EducationInnovations in Medical Education

Exploring Generative Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Medical Education: Assessing Case-Based Learning for Medical Students

Open access
Sauder, Matthew, Tritsch, Tara, Rajput, Vijay, Schwartz, Gary, Shoja, Mohammadali M·2024·Cureus

Abstract

The recent public release of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has brought fresh excitement by making access to GenAI for medical education easier than ever before. It is now incumbent upon both students and faculty to determine the optimal role of GenAI within the medical school curriculum. Given the promise and limitations of GenAI, this study aims to assess the current capabilities of a GenAI (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, ChatGPT), specifically within the framework of a pre-clerkship case-based active learning curriculum. The role of GenAI is explored by evaluating its performance in generating educational materials, creating medical assessment questions, answering medical queries, and engaging in clinical reasoning by prompting it to respond to a problem-based learning scenario. Our results demonstrated that GenAI addressed epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment questions well. However, there were still instances where it failed to provide comprehensive answers. Responses from GenAI might offer essential information, hint at the need for further inquiry, or sometimes omit critical details. GenAI struggled with generating information on complex topics, raising a significant concern when using it as a 'search engine' for medical student queries. This creates uncertainty for students regarding potentially missed critical information. With the increasing integration of GenAI into medical education, it is imperative for faculty to become well-versed in both its advantages and limitations. This awareness will enable them to educate students on using GenAI effectively in medical education.

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 · 10.7759/cureus.51961

Cites

25 of 25 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sauder, M., Tritsch, T., Rajput, V., Schwartz, G., & Shoja, M. M.
Affiliations
Nova Southeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
Shoja, Mohammadali M
Venue
Cureus
Published
2024-01-09
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
e51961-e51961
ISSN
2168-8184 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390775937
Cited by
41
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 5
FWCI
3.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
generative AI, ChatGPT, medical education, case-based learning, pre-clerkship curriculum, problem-based learning, clinical reasoning, AI limitations, medical 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