Usability and Efficacy of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots (ChatGPT) for Health Sciences Students: Protocol for a Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into health sciences students' education holds significant importance. The rapid advancement of AI has opened new horizons in scientific writing and has the potential to reshape human-technology interactions. AI in education may impact critical thinking, leading to unintended consequences that need to be addressed. Understanding the implications of AI adoption in education is essential for ensuring its responsible and effective use, empowering health sciences students to navigate AI-driven technologies' evolving field with essential knowledge and skills. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide details on the study protocol and the methods used to investigate the usability and efficacy of ChatGPT, a large language model. The primary focus is on assessing its role as a supplementary learning tool for improving learning processes and outcomes among undergraduate health sciences students, with a specific emphasis on chronic diseases. METHODS: This single-blinded, crossover, randomized, controlled trial is part of a broader mixed methods study, and the primary emphasis of this paper is on the quantitative component of the overall research. A total of 50 students will be recruited for this study. The alternative hypothesis posits that there will be a significant difference in learning outcomes and technology usability between students using ChatGPT (group A) and those using standard web-based tools (group B) to access resources and complete assignments. Participants will be allocated to sequence AB or BA in a 1:1 ratio using computer-generated randomization. Both arms include students' participation in a writing assignment intervention, with a washout period of 21 days between interventions. The primary outcome is the measure of the technology usability and effectiveness of ChatGPT, whereas the secondary outcome is the measure of students' perceptions and experiences with ChatGPT as a learning tool. Outcome data will be collected up to 24 hours after the interventions. RESULTS: This study aims to understand the potential benefits and challenges of incorporating AI as an educational tool, particularly in the context of student learning. The findings are expected to identify critical areas that need attention and help educators develop a deeper understanding of AI's impact on the educational field. By exploring the differences in the usability and efficacy between ChatGPT and conventional web-based tools, this study seeks to inform educators and students on the responsible integration of AI into academic settings, with a specific focus on health sciences education. CONCLUSIONS: By exploring the usability and efficacy of ChatGPT compared with conventional web-based tools, this study seeks to inform educators and students about the responsible integration of AI into academic settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrails.gov NCT05963802; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05963802. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/51873.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,053 | 0,060 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,054 | 0,009 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».