Assessing Familiarity, Usage Patterns, and Attitudes of Medical Students Toward ChatGPT and Other Chat-Based AI Apps in Medical Education: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: There has been a rise in the popularity of ChatGPT and other chat-based artificial intelligence (AI) apps in medical education. Despite data being available from other parts of the world, there is a significant lack of information on this topic in medical education and research, particularly in Saudi Arabia. Objective: The primary objective of the study was to examine the familiarity, usage patterns, and attitudes of Alfaisal University medical students toward ChatGPT and other chat-based AI apps in medical education. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted from October 8, 2023, through November 22, 2023. A questionnaire was distributed through social media channels to medical students at Alfaisal University who were 18 years or older. Current Alfaisal University medical students in years 1 through 6, of both genders, were exclusively targeted by the questionnaire. The study was approved by Alfaisal University Institutional Review Board. A χ2 test was conducted to assess the relationships between gender, year of study, familiarity, and reasons for usage. Results: A total of 293 responses were received, of which 95 (32.4%) were from men and 198 (67.6%) were from women. There were 236 (80.5%) responses from preclinical students and 57 (19.5%) from clinical students, respectively. Overall, males (n=93, 97.9%) showed more familiarity with ChatGPT compared to females (n=180, 90.09%; P=.03). Additionally, males also used Google Bard and Microsoft Bing ChatGPT more than females (P<.001). Clinical-year students used ChatGPT significantly more for general writing purposes compared to preclinical students (P=.005). Additionally, 136 (46.4%) students believed that using ChatGPT and other chat-based AI apps for coursework was ethical, 86 (29.4%) were neutral, and 71 (24.2%) considered it unethical (all Ps>.05). Conclusions: Familiarity with and usage of ChatGPT and other chat-based AI apps were common among the students of Alfaisal University. The usage patterns of these apps differ between males and females and between preclinical and clinical-year students.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».