MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322761615 · doi:10.2196/46885

The Role of ChatGPT, Generative Language Models, and Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: A Conversation With ChatGPT and a Call for Papers

2023· paratext· en· W4322761615 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Günther Eysenbach

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2023
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsJMIR Publications
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationGenerative grammarCurriculumComputer scienceSnapshot (computer storage)Artificial intelligencePsychologyPedagogyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ChatGPT is a generative language model tool launched by OpenAI on November 30, 2022, enabling the public to converse with a machine on a broad range of topics. In January 2023, ChatGPT reached over 100 million users, making it the fastest-growing consumer application to date. This interview with ChatGPT is part 2 of a larger interview with ChatGPT. It provides a snapshot of the current capabilities of ChatGPT and illustrates the vast potential for medical education, research, and practice but also hints at current problems and limitations. In this conversation with Gunther Eysenbach, the founder and publisher of JMIR Publications, ChatGPT generated some ideas on how to use chatbots in medical education. It also illustrated its capabilities to generate a virtual patient simulation and quizzes for medical students; critiqued a simulated doctor-patient communication and attempts to summarize a research article (which turned out to be fabricated); commented on methods to detect machine-generated text to ensure academic integrity; generated a curriculum for health professionals to learn about artificial intelligence (AI); and helped to draft a call for papers for a new theme issue to be launched in JMIR Medical Education on ChatGPT. The conversation also highlighted the importance of proper "prompting." Although the language generator does make occasional mistakes, it admits these when challenged. The well-known disturbing tendency of large language models to hallucinate became evident when ChatGPT fabricated references. The interview provides a glimpse into the capabilities and limitations of ChatGPT and the future of AI-supported medical education. Due to the impact of this new technology on medical education, JMIR Medical Education is launching a call for papers for a new e-collection and theme issue. The initial draft of the call for papers was entirely machine generated by ChatGPT, but will be edited by the human guest editors of the theme issue.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.080
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0800.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.032
Scholarly communication0.0150.036
Open science0.0040.012
Research integrity0.0170.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations836
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical EducationSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207