CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in EducationInnovations in Medical Education

ChatGPT for Academic Purposes: Survey Among Undergraduate Healthcare Students in Malaysia

Open access
George Pallivathukal, Renjith, Kyaw Soe, Htoo Htoo, Donald, Preethy Mary, Samson, Renu Sarah, Hj Ismail, Abdul Rashid·2024·Cureus
DOI 10.7759/cureus.53032PMC PMC10895383
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The impact of generative artificial intelligence-based Chatbots on medical education, particularly in Southeast Asia, is understudied regarding healthcare students' perceptions of its academic utility. Sociodemographic profiles and educational strategies influence prospective healthcare practitioners' attitudes toward AI tools. AIM AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess healthcare university students' knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding ChatGPT for academic purposes. It explored chatbot usage frequency, purposes, satisfaction levels, and associations between age, gender, and ChatGPT variables. METHODOLOGY: Four hundred forty-three undergraduate students at a Malaysian tertiary healthcare institute participated, revealing varying awareness levels of ChatGPT's academic utility. Despite concerns about accuracy, ethics, and dependency, participants generally held positive attitudes toward ChatGPT in academics. RESULTS: Multiple logistic regression highlighted associations between demographics, knowledge, attitude, and academic ChatGPT use. MBBS students were significantly more likely to use ChatGPT for academics than BDS and FIS students. Final-year students exhibited the highest likelihood of academic ChatGPT use. Higher knowledge and positive attitudes correlated with increased academic usage. Most users (45.8%) employed ChatGPT to aid specific assignment sections while completing most work independently. Some did not use it (41.1%), while others heavily relied on it (9.3%). Users also employed it for various purposes, from generating questions to understanding concepts. Thematic analysis of responses showed students' concerns about data accuracy, plagiarism, ethical issues, and dependency on ChatGPT for academic tasks. CONCLUSION: This study aids in creating guidelines for implementing GAI chatbots in healthcare education, emphasizing benefits, and risks, and informing AI developers and educators about ChatGPT's potential in academia.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This cross-sectional survey of 443 undergraduate healthcare students in Malaysia found suboptimal knowledge but generally positive attitudes toward ChatGPT for academic purposes. Program, year of study, knowledge, and attitude were significant predictors of academic ChatGPT use, while gender was not.

Key findings

  • Mean knowledge score was 4.1 (SD 2.3) out of 8, while mean attitude score was 37.1 (SD 3.2) out of 55, indicating suboptimal knowledge and positive attitudes.
  • Academic use of ChatGPT was reported by 36.6% of participants; 74.7% used ChatGPT rarely, 13.5% weekly, 7.7% monthly, and 4.1% daily.
  • In adjusted multiple logistic regression, MBBS students were more likely to use ChatGPT academically than BDS students (OR = 3.13, 95% CI 1.27–7.70, P = 0.013), FIS students more likely than BDS students (OR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.12–3.40, P = 0.018), and Year-5 students more likely than Year-1 students (OR = 3.37, 95% CI 1.59–7.16, P = 0.002).
  • Higher knowledge (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.03–1.27, P = 0.014) and more positive attitude (OR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.18–1.37, P < 0.001) were associated with greater academic use; gender was not significant (male OR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.74–1.98, P = 0.447).

Methods

  • Cross-sectional survey among 443 undergraduate students at Manipal University College Malaysia (MUCM), including MBBS, BDS, and Foundation in Science (FIS) programs; target sample size was 500, with non-probability convenience sampling and third-party recruitment.
  • A validated English questionnaire covered Knowledge (9 questions), Attitude (11 questions), and Practice (8 questions); data were collected via Google Forms shared by email and social media.
  • Analysis used SPSS version 29 with descriptive statistics, independent t-test, one-way ANOVA/Welch ANOVA, chi-square tests, and multiple linear and multiple logistic regression at a 0.05 significance level.

Limitations

  • The paper states the study had a limited sample size and was conducted at a single institute; participants may have been apprehensive about admitting ChatGPT use due to risk of accusation.
  • The paper states future studies should use larger, more diverse sampling across countries and cultural backgrounds.
  • Evident from the text: the cross-sectional design, convenience sampling, and self-reported online questionnaire limit causal inference and may introduce social desirability or selection bias.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7759/cureus.53032

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 35 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    A total of 443 undergraduate students from MBBS, BDS, and FIS at MUCM participated in the study.

    “A total of 443 university students from three different courses Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS), Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS), and Foundation in Science (FIS) participated in this study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The self-reported questionnaire responses accurately reflect students' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ChatGPT.
  • Findingown data

    The mean knowledge total score was 4.1 (SD 2.3) out of a possible 8.

    “The overall knowledge and attitude scores ranged from a mean of 4.1 (SD = 2.3) out of a possible 8 and 37.1 (SD = 3.2) out of 55, respectively (Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The self-reported questionnaire responses accurately reflect students' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ChatGPT.
  • Findingown data

    The mean attitude total score was 37.1 (SD 3.2) out of a possible 55.

    “The overall knowledge and attitude scores ranged from a mean of 4.1 (SD = 2.3) out of a possible 8 and 37.1 (SD = 3.2) out of 55, respectively (Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The self-reported questionnaire responses accurately reflect students' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ChatGPT.
  • Findingown data

    Thematic analysis identified students' concerns about dependency on ChatGPT for academic tasks.

    “Thematic analysis of responses showed students’ concerns about data accuracy, plagiarism, ethical issues, and dependency on ChatGPT for academic tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The thematic analysis of open-ended responses captures the main limitations and concerns of the participants.
  • Findingown data

    A considerable percentage (17.7% to 56.9%) holds dissenting opinions on topics like ChatGPT's impact on education, the detection of ChatGPT-generated assignments by teachers, and its ethical use in academics.

    “Conversely, a considerable percentage (ranging from 17.7% to 56.9%) holds dissenting opinions on topics like ChatGPT's impact on education, the detection of ChatGPT-generated assignments by teachers, and its ethical use in academics.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 42
  • May combine two claims. 42

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Seven participants (1.5%) opted for 'Prefer not to say' regarding gender.

    “Seven participants opted for “Prefer not to say” regarding the gender (1.5%) (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The self-reported questionnaire responses accurately reflect students' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ChatGPT.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    61.2% of participants were aged 21-25 years.

    “61.2% of the students were 21-25 years and 70.9% were male.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The self-reported questionnaire responses accurately reflect students' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ChatGPT.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    70.9% of participants were male.

    “61.2% of the students were 21-25 years and 70.9% were male.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The self-reported questionnaire responses accurately reflect students' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ChatGPT.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Students know that ChatGPT is not a human and that it can sometimes make mistakes.

    “They also know that ChatGPT is not a human and that it can sometimes make mistakes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The dialogue mentions instances where YouTubers have manipulated ChatGPT to fulfil orders, raising concerns about misuse.

    “The dialogue mentions instances where YouTubers have manipulated ChatGPT to fulfil orders, raising concerns about misuse.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ChatGPT is described as providing general responses in the absence of clear instructions, highlighting the need for precise commands.

    “ChatGPT is described as providing general responses in the absence of clear instructions, highlighting the need for precise commands.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Year of study influences knowledge, attitude, and academic use, with Year-2 and Year-4 students showing higher scores in these aspects.

    “Year of study also influences knowledge, attitude, and academic use, with Year-2 and Year-4 students showing higher scores in these aspects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Respondents have used ChatGPT for academic tasks including assignment and essay writing, paraphrasing, research proposal writing, searching for study materials, email drafting, and exam preparation.

    “These tasks include assignment and essay writing, paraphrasing, research proposal writing, searching for study materials, email drafting, and exam preparation.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “The findings of the present study reveal that students have employed ChatGPT for diverse academic tasks, encompassing assignment and essay composition, paraphrasing, research proposal drafting, information retrieval for academic purposes, composing emails, and facilitating exam preparation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Quillbot is the most frequently mentioned tool, followed by Bard, Openai, Photomath, and others.

    ““Quillbot” is the most frequently mentioned tool, followed by “Bard,” “Openai,” “Photomath,” and others.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Students know that ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM) that can generate text, translate languages, write different kinds of creative content, and answer questions in an informative way.

    “They know that it is a large language model (LLM) that can generate text, translate languages, write different kinds of creative content, and answer your questions in an informative way.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The listed tools collectively cover the majority of valid responses provided by the respondents.

    “The cumulative percentage suggests that the listed tools collectively cover the majority of valid responses provided by the respondents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The mean attitude score was 37.1 out of maximum score 55, indicating positive attitudes toward ChatGPT.

    “The mean attitude score was 37.1 out of maximum score 55 which indicates positive attitudes toward ChatGPT.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Many students are unsure about the reliability of responses, its impact on education, and its ethical implications.

    “Many students are unsure about the reliability of responses, its impact on education, and its ethical implications.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ChatGPT's inability to discern truth from lies, both in generating and checking content, is emphasized, impacting its credibility.

    “ChatGPT's inability to discern truth from lies, both in generating and checking content, is emphasized, impacting its credibility.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    While a significant proportion of university students are aware of ChatGPT's capabilities, a sizable portion lack knowledge about its various functions and limitations.

    “The present study data shows that while a significant proportion of university students are aware of ChatGPT's capabilities, there is still a sizable portion of students who lack knowledge about its various functions and limitations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Concerns are raised about ChatGPT being persuaded to give incorrect answers, highlighting the potential for manipulation.

    “Concerns are raised about ChatGPT being persuaded to give incorrect answers, highlighting the potential for manipulation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MBBS students, Year-5 students, and those with higher knowledge and a more positive attitude are more likely to use ChatGPT for academic purposes.

    “MBBS students, Year-5 students, and those with higher knowledge and a more positive attitude are more likely to use ChatGPT for academic purposes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants express concerns about ChatGPT's limitations in providing up-to-date information and its reliance on websites without verification.

    “Concerns are expressed about ChatGPT's limitations in providing up-to-date information and its reliance on websites without verification.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Table 5 shows 74.7% of participants used ChatGPT rarely, 7.7% monthly, 13.5% weekly, and 4.1% daily.

    “Table 5 shows 74.7% of the participants used ChatGPT rarely while 7.7% used it monthly, 13.5% used it weekly and 4.1% used it daily.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The mean knowledge score was 4.1 out of a maximum score of 8, indicating suboptimal knowledge.

    “Table 4 shows the mean score of knowledge was 4.1 out of a maximum score of 8 which indicates suboptimal knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Students who have used ChatGPT for academic purposes have a good understanding of how it works.

    “Students who have used ChatGPT for academic purposes have a good understanding of how it works.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Participants note that ChatGPT lacks a personal touch in responses, indicating the absence of human-like interaction.

    “Participants note that ChatGPT lacks a personal touch in responses, indicating the absence of human-like interaction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MBBS students have a more positive attitude and higher academic use compared to other programs.

    “MBBS students have a more positive attitude and higher academic use compared to other programs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Some responses indicate respondents have not used ChatGPT for academic tasks, have never used it, or do not like using it.

    “Additionally, some responses indicate respondents have not used ChatGPT for academic tasks, have never used it, or do not like using it.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
      “In contrast, some respondents indicated that they either had not employed ChatGPT for academic tasks, had never utilized it, or simply did not favor its use.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There are differing views on whether to recommend ChatGPT to friends for academic purposes, with 58.3% in agreement and 34.2% expressing hesitation.

    “but there are differing views on whether to recommend ChatGPT to friends for academic purposes, with 58.3% in agreement and 34.2% expressing hesitation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    ChatGPT's inability to rationalize its answers is noted, indicating limitations in providing explanations.

    “ChatGPT's inability to rationalize its answers is noted, indicating limitations in providing explanations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The findings demonstrated that a significant proportion of the study participants possessed suboptimal knowledge and favorable viewpoints concerning ChatGPT's concept and practical application.

    “The findings demonstrated that a significant proportion of the study participants possessed suboptimal knowledge and favorable viewpoints concerning ChatGPT's concept and practical application.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A few respondents use ChatGPT for specific purposes like generating multiple-choice questions, getting an estimate about a topic, understanding a theory's general concept, or seeking ideas and paraphrasing them into their own words.

    “A few respondents use it for specific purposes like generating multiple-choice questions, getting an estimate about a topic, understanding a theory's general concept, or seeking ideas and paraphrasing them into their own words.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Students who have used ChatGPT for academic purposes have used it in a variety of ways, including answering questions about material, getting feedback on writing, and generating ideas for projects or assignments.

    “Students who have used ChatGPT for academic purposes have used it in a variety of ways. Some students have used it to answer questions about the material they are learning. Others have used it to get feedback on their writing. Still, others have used it to generate ideas for projects or assignments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Present survey results highlighted various limitations of ChatGPT as perceived by the respondents, including inaccuracies in information, issues with citations, the inability to provide real-time data, and the need for specific instructions for generating accurate responses.

    “Present survey results highlighted various limitations of ChatGPT as perceived by the respondents (Table 8). Some of the common limitations mentioned include inaccuracies in information, issues with citations, the inability to provide real-time data, and the need for specific instructions for generating accurate responses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A few respondents have never used ChatGPT for academic assignments or don't use it at all.

    “Lastly, there are a few respondents who have never used ChatGPT for academic assignments or don't use it at all.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    While many students have used ChatGPT for non-academic purposes, a considerable portion agrees that it has helped them with academic tasks and reduced time and effort.

    “While many students have used ChatGPT for non-academic purposes, a considerable portion agrees that it has helped them with academic tasks and reduced time and effort.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    While students acknowledge the convenience and potential benefits of ChatGPT, there is also a considerable level of uncertainty, skepticism, and ethical concerns surrounding its use for academic purposes.

    “The data from the present study reveal that while students acknowledge the convenience and potential benefits of ChatGPT, there is also a considerable level of uncertainty, skepticism, and ethical concerns surrounding its use for academic purposes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    For one-way ANOVA, the assumption of homogeneity was checked, and Welch ANOVA was used when the assumption was not met.

    “While employing one-way ANOVA, the assumption of homogeneity was checked, and when the assumption was not met, Welch ANOVA was used.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Sample size calculation using a single population proportion formula with 5% precision, 95% confidence, and 50% estimated proportion determined a minimum sample size of 400, and the final sample size was set at 500.

    “Sample size calculation was performed using the formula for a single population proportion, with a precision error of 5%, a confidence level of 95%, and an estimated proportion of 50%. The minimum sample size required was determined to be 400, considering a non-response rate of 20%. The final sample size was set at 500.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Students are concerned about the potential for ChatGPT to be used for academic dishonesty and they are aware of the limitations of ChatGPT and the need for careful consideration before it is widely adopted.

    “Students are concerned about the potential for ChatGPT to be used for academic dishonesty and they are aware of the limitations of ChatGPT and the need for careful consideration before it is widely adopted.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [22] Firat M. What ChatGPT means for universities: perceptions of scholars and students [PREPRINT]. J Appl Learn Teach. 2023, 6:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.22 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [23] Ajlouni A. Students’ attitudes towards using ChatGPT as a learning tool: the case of the University of Jordan.. Int J Interact Mobile Technol. 2023, 17:99-117. 10.3991/ijim.v17i18.41753 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Non-probability convenience sampling was used, and third-party recruitment was employed to select participants.

    “Non-probability convenience sampling was used, and third-party recruitment was employed to select participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Students are optimistic about the potential of ChatGPT to be used in universities.

    “Previous studies indicate that students are optimistic about the potential of ChatGPT to be used in universities [22,23].”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “Students are also generally optimistic about the potential of ChatGPT to be used in universities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [22] Firat M. What ChatGPT means for universities: perceptions of scholars and students [PREPRINT]. J Appl Learn Teach. 2023, 6:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.22 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [23] Ajlouni A. Students’ attitudes towards using ChatGPT as a learning tool: the case of the University of Jordan.. Int J Interact Mobile Technol. 2023, 17:99-117. 10.3991/ijim.v17i18.41753 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These responses highlight the versatility of ChatGPT in assisting with various academic tasks, but they also reflect the diversity of user experiences and preferences, including those who have not utilized it for academic purposes.

    “These responses highlight the versatility of ChatGPT in assisting with various academic tasks, but they also reflect the diversity of user experiences and preferences, including those who have not utilized it for academic purposes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The questionnaire underwent item content validation using median, item ambiguity, percentage agreement, item content validity index, content validity ratio, and content validity coefficient, and was refined based on ICVI and expert comments.

    “A questionnaire (English) was prepared following focus group discussions and underwent item content validation. To evaluate the questionnaire's validity, we performed various calculations including determining the median value for each item, assessing item ambiguity (IA), measuring percentage agreement (PA), calculating the item content validity index (ICVI), determining the content validity ratio”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [19] Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006, 29:489-97. 10.1002/nur.20147 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [20] Aravamudhan NR, Krishnaveni R. Establishing and reporting content validity evidence of Training and Development Capacity Building Scale (TDCBS). Management. 2015, 20:131-58. 10.30924/mjcmi source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A recent study observed that there is an emerging consensus among students to use the tool, while educators tend to view its use as plagiarism, highlighting the need for policy discussions on integrating AI into educational frameworks.

    “A recent study [24] observed that there is an emerging consensus among students to use the tool, while educators tend to view its use as plagiarism, highlighting the need for policy discussions on integrating AI into educational frameworks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] Ibrahim H, Liu F, Asim R, et al.. Perception, performance, and detectability of conversational artificial intelligence across 32 university courses. Sci Rep. 2023, 13:12187. 10.1038/s41598-023-38964-3 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Students believe that ChatGPT can be used to help them with their studies, such as providing personalized feedback and answering questions.

    “They believe that ChatGPT can be used to help them with their studies, such as providing personalized feedback and answering questions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [22] Firat M. What ChatGPT means for universities: perceptions of scholars and students [PREPRINT]. J Appl Learn Teach. 2023, 6:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.22 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [23] Ajlouni A. Students’ attitudes towards using ChatGPT as a learning tool: the case of the University of Jordan.. Int J Interact Mobile Technol. 2023, 17:99-117. 10.3991/ijim.v17i18.41753 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    They shed light on the assortment of user encounters and preferences, which encompasses individuals who have abstained from using it for academic purposes.

    “Simultaneously, they shed light on the assortment of user encounters and preferences, which encompasses individuals who have abstained from using it for academic purposes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    White et al. also found that it was important to use ChatGPT in conjunction with other resources, such as human tutors and textbooks.

    “However, they also found that it was important to use ChatGPT in conjunction with other resources, such as human tutors and textbooks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26] White PJ, Larson I, Styles K, et al.. Adopting an active learning approach to teaching in a research-intensive higher education context transformed staff teaching attitudes and behaviours. Higher Educ Res Develop. 2016, 35:619-33. 10.1080/07294360.2015.1107887 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Ethical considerations arise from ChatGPT's ability to closely emulate human-authored content, raising concerns about users mistakenly perceiving interactions with the tool as human-like and thereby introducing ethical complexities.

    “Ethical considerations arise from ChatGPT's ability to closely emulate human-authored content, raising concerns about users mistakenly perceiving interactions with the tool as human-like and thereby introducing ethical complexities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] Ray PP. ChatGPT: a comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope. Internet Things Cyber-Physical Syst. 2022, 3:121-54. 10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The survey highlights the perception among students that relying on such AI tools for academic tasks may violate academic integrity and ethical standards.

    “The survey highlights the perception among students that relying on such AI tools for academic tasks may violate academic integrity and ethical standards.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] More than half of college students believe using ChatGPT to complete assignments is cheating. (2023). Accessed. January 10, 2024: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2023/03/20/more-than-half-of-college-students-believe-using-chatgpt-to-c....

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Among these users, almost half reported frequent use of the tool, particularly for English (49%) and "hard" sciences like chemistry and biology (41%) assignments.

    “Among these users, almost half reported frequent use of the tool, particularly for English (49%) and “hard” sciences like chemistry and biology (41%) assignments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28] Survey. 30% of college students used ChatGPT for schoolwork this past academic year. (2023). Accessed: January 10, 2024: https://www.diverseeducation.com/reports-data/article/15448462/survey-30-of-college-students-used-chatgpt-for-schoolw....

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The majority of students are familiar with Chat GPT and are knowledgeable about its various applications, which function as supplements to conventional resources and enhance their efficiency and productivity when completing daily university tasks.

    “The majority of students are familiar with Chat GPT and are knowledgeable about its various applications, which function as supplements to conventional resources and enhance their efficiency and productivity when completing daily university tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The primary concern lies in the potential compromise to academic integrity presented by AI essay-writing systems, particularly ChatGPT.

    “The primary concern lies in the potential compromise to academic integrity presented by AI essay-writing systems, particularly ChatGPT.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [4] Moorhouse BL, Yeo MA, Wan Y. Generative AI tools and assessment: guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities. Computers Educat Open. 2023, 5:100151. 10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6] Rasul T, Nair S, Kalendra D, et al.. The role of ChatGPT in higher education: benefits, challenges, and future research directions. J Appl Learn Teach. 2023, 6:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Another study conducted with 1,223 undergraduate and graduate students showed that approximately 30% of college students used ChatGPT for schoolwork during the past academic year.

    “Another study [28] conducted with 1,223 undergraduate and graduate students showed that approximately 30% of college students used ChatGPT for schoolwork during the past academic year.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28] Survey. 30% of college students used ChatGPT for schoolwork this past academic year. (2023). Accessed: January 10, 2024: https://www.diverseeducation.com/reports-data/article/15448462/survey-30-of-college-students-used-chatgpt-for-schoolw....

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    57% of college students did not intend to continue using AI tools for their schoolwork.

    “However, 57% of college students did not intend to continue using AI tools for their schoolwork.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] Half of college students say using AI on schoolwork is cheating or plagiarism. (2023). Accessed. January 10, 2024: https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-students-ai-tools-survey/.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    While AI tools like ChatGPT may offer convenience and efficiency in completing assignments, there is also a significant concern among students about their impact on the traditional learning process and academic integrity.

    “This indicates that while AI tools like ChatGPT may offer convenience and efficiency in completing assignments, there is also a significant concern among students about their impact on the traditional learning process and academic integrity [30].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] More than half of college students believe using ChatGPT to complete assignments is cheating. (2023). Accessed. January 10, 2024: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2023/03/20/more-than-half-of-college-students-believe-using-chatgpt-to-c....

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A survey with 1,000 students over the age of 18 found that 89% admitted to using ChatGPT for homework; 48% used it for at-home tests or quizzes; 50% used it for writing essays; and 22% utilized it for paper outlines.

    “Results of a survey with 1,000 students over the age of 18 found that 89% admitted to using ChatGPT for homework. Additionally, 48% confessed to using it for at-home tests or quizzes, 50% used it for writing essays, and 22% utilized it for paper outlines [27].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] Productive teaching tool or innovative cheating?. (2023). Accessed. January 10, 2024: https://study.com/resources/perceptions-of-chatgpt-in-schools.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    White et al. reported students who used ChatGPT for an English composition course found that it helped generate ideas and get feedback on their writing.

    “White et al. [26] reported students who used ChatGPT for an English composition course found that it helped generate ideas and get feedback on their writing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26] White PJ, Larson I, Styles K, et al.. Adopting an active learning approach to teaching in a research-intensive higher education context transformed staff teaching attitudes and behaviours. Higher Educ Res Develop. 2016, 35:619-33. 10.1080/07294360.2015.1107887 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Welding et al. surveyed 1,000 undergraduate and graduate students and found that 43% of college students have used ChatGPT or a similar AI application.

    “Welding et al. [29] surveyed 1,000 undergraduate and graduate students and found that 43% of college students have used ChatGPT or a similar AI application.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] Half of college students say using AI on schoolwork is cheating or plagiarism. (2023). Accessed. January 10, 2024: https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-students-ai-tools-survey/.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The primary concerns stem from the perceived lack of transparency in OpenAI's technology, which has been deemed an "opaque system."

    “The primary concerns stem from the perceived lack of transparency in OpenAI's technology, which has been deemed an “opaque system.””
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] Sallam M. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare (Basel). 2023, 11:887. 10.3390/healthcare11060887 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Among the users, 50% stated they had used it to help complete assignments or exams.

    “Among the users, 50% stated they had used it to help complete assignments or exams.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] Half of college students say using AI on schoolwork is cheating or plagiarism. (2023). Accessed. January 10, 2024: https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-students-ai-tools-survey/.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    It is emphasized that ChatGPT should not be regarded as a substitute for human expertise due to its ongoing development and susceptibility to errors.

    “It is emphasized that ChatGPT should not be regarded as a substitute for human expertise due to its ongoing development and susceptibility to errors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] Ray PP. ChatGPT: a comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope. Internet Things Cyber-Physical Syst. 2022, 3:121-54. 10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Since the participants are students, there could be apprehensions to admit that they are using the tool due to the risk of accusation.

    “Since the participants are students, there could be apprehensions to admit that they are using the tool due to the risk of accusation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The present study was conducted with a limited sample size and in a single institute.

    “The present study was conducted with a limited sample size and in a single institute.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    According to Nietzel et al. in Forbes on March 20, 2023, more than half of college students believe that using ChatGPT to complete assignments is considered cheating.

    “According to the findings reported by Nietzel et al. in Forbes on March 20, 2023, more than half of college students believe that using ChatGPT, an AI-based chatbot, to complete assignments is considered cheating.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] More than half of college students believe using ChatGPT to complete assignments is cheating. (2023). Accessed. January 10, 2024: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2023/03/20/more-than-half-of-college-students-believe-using-chatgpt-to-c....

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    These outcomes underscore the adaptability of ChatGPT in offering support for a wide array of academic responsibilities.

    “These outcomes underscore the adaptability of ChatGPT in offering support for a wide array of academic responsibilities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Approximately 51% of college students considered using AI tools on schoolwork as cheating or plagiarism, while 20% disagreed.

    “Approximately 51% of college students considered using AI tools on schoolwork as cheating or plagiarism, while 20% disagreed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] Half of college students say using AI on schoolwork is cheating or plagiarism. (2023). Accessed. January 10, 2024: https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-students-ai-tools-survey/.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Users identify these limitations across various aspects of the AI's capabilities, underscoring the importance of understanding its boundaries and using it responsibly in academic and other contexts.

    “Users identify these limitations across various aspects of the AI's capabilities, underscoring the importance of understanding its boundaries and using it responsibly in academic and other contexts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    12% of ChatGPT users reported an increase in their GPA from the fall of 2022 to the spring of 2023.

    “Moreover, 12% of ChatGPT users reported an increase in their GPA from the fall of 2022 to the spring of 2023.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28] Survey. 30% of college students used ChatGPT for schoolwork this past academic year. (2023). Accessed: January 10, 2024: https://www.diverseeducation.com/reports-data/article/15448462/survey-30-of-college-students-used-chatgpt-for-schoolw....

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Recent studies have brought to light the potential for students to exploit ChatGPT for academic dishonesty.

    “Recent studies have brought to light the potential for students to exploit ChatGPT for academic dishonesty.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [4] Moorhouse BL, Yeo MA, Wan Y. Generative AI tools and assessment: guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities. Computers Educat Open. 2023, 5:100151. 10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6] Rasul T, Nair S, Kalendra D, et al.. The role of ChatGPT in higher education: benefits, challenges, and future research directions. J Appl Learn Teach. 2023, 6:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    There is an apprehension that students might submit essays that do not authentically represent their work, thus contravening ethical standards within educational institutions.

    “There is an apprehension that students might submit essays that do not authentically represent their work, thus contravening ethical standards within educational institutions [4,6].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [4] Moorhouse BL, Yeo MA, Wan Y. Generative AI tools and assessment: guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities. Computers Educat Open. 2023, 5:100151. 10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6] Rasul T, Nair S, Kalendra D, et al.. The role of ChatGPT in higher education: benefits, challenges, and future research directions. J Appl Learn Teach. 2023, 6:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    ChatGPT's proficiency in generating synthetic information has raised concerns about its potential to compromise academic integrity.

    “Additionally, ChatGPT's proficiency in generating synthetic information has raised concerns about its potential to compromise academic integrity [14].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] Sallam M. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare (Basel). 2023, 11:887. 10.3390/healthcare11060887 source

      Not checked in the free run.

68 of 68

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The self-reported questionnaire responses accurately reflect students' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ChatGPT.

    “The final validated questionnaire (Appendix 1, Table 9) consisted of three sections: Knowledge (nine questions), Attitude (11 questions), and Practice (eight questions).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The convenience sample of MUCM students is adequate for informing guidelines for implementing GAI chatbots in healthcare education more broadly.

    “This study aids in creating guidelines for implementing GAI chatbots in healthcare education, emphasizing benefits, and risks, and informing AI developers and educators about ChatGPT's potential in academia.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The thematic analysis of open-ended responses captures the main limitations and concerns of the participants.

    “The present study conducted a thematic analysis of the responses received from participants regarding the limitations of ChatGPT for academic use.”
3 of 3

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?

  • Younger generations tend to become more quickly familiar with technological innovation than previous generations.

    “This result may reflect greater exposure of young people to digital technology and automated learning tools; previous studies have shown a similar association, suggesting that younger generations tend to become more quickly familiar with technological innovation than previous generations [24, 26]”

    From Knowledge and use, Perceptions of Benefits and Limitations of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots among Italian Physiotherapy students: a cross-sectional National Study (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) say that most surveyed undergraduate students were familiar with ChatGPT, supporting familiarity among this young student group. The paper does not compare generations or measure how quickly they become familiar with new technology, so it does not support the comparative claim. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Eight studies examined the knowledge, attitudes, and skills of medical students and educators regarding LLMs, specifically ChatGPT; students generally expressed a more positive attitude toward LLMs than practicing physicians; those more knowledgeable about LLMs tended to hold a more positive attitude and were more likely to use them for educational purposes; and concerns were raised regarding the

    “Eight studies examined the knowledge, attitudes, and skills of medical students and educators regarding LLMs, specifically ChatGPT [24, 26–29, 79–81]. Students generally expressed a more positive attitude toward LLMs than practicing physicians, showing optimism about their potential to support learners and educators [81]. Those who were more knowledgeable about LLMs tended to hold a more positive”

    From Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: an updated scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [80]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Percentage declining to state gender is misstated

    Minor

    Seven of 443 participants is 1.6% to one decimal place, as Table 1 reports, rather than the 1.5% stated in the results text.

    Reported 1.5 · recomputed 1.580135

  • Agreement percentage is inconsistent with its count

    Minor

    Table 3 has 443 participants, so 152 agreeing participants represent 34.3%, not the reported 24.3%.

    Reported 24.3 · recomputed 34.311512

  • Strong-disagreement percentage is nearly ten times its count

    Minor

    For the cheating question, 21 participants represent approximately 4.7% of the stated 443 participants, not 47.7%.

    Reported 47.7 · recomputed 4.740406

  • FIS-versus-BDS odds ratio is described as MBBS-versus-FIS

    Minor

    The prose assigns the adjusted OR of 1.95 to MBBS students compared with FIS students. Table 7 instead identifies BDS as the reference and assigns 1.95 to FIS, so that OR compares FIS with BDS.

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
George Pallivathukal, R., Kyaw Soe, H. H., Donald, P. M., Samson, R. S., & Hj Ismail, A. R.
Affiliations
Manipal University College Malaysia (MY)
ORCID
Donald, Preethy Mary
Venue
Cureus
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-01-27
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
e53032-e53032
ISSN
2168-8184 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.7759/cureus.53032
PMC
PMC10895383
OpenAlex
W4391281957
Semantic Scholar
6f1b8424cce4d756d487b1629971030cd4c21dc5
Cited by
68
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 15
FWCI
6.36
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
ChatGPT, generative AI, health professions students, medical education, student attitudes toward AI, plagiarism concerns, AI dependency, AI ethics, undergraduate medical students, dental 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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