The Intersection of ChatGPT, Clinical Medicine, and Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we progress deeper into the digital age, the robust development and application of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) technology, specifically generative language models like ChatGPT (OpenAI), have potential implications in all sectors including medicine. This viewpoint article aims to present the authors' perspective on the integration of AI models such as ChatGPT in clinical medicine and medical education. The unprecedented capacity of ChatGPT to generate human-like responses, refined through Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback, could significantly reshape the pedagogical methodologies within medical education. Through a comprehensive review and the authors' personal experiences, this viewpoint article elucidates the pros, cons, and ethical considerations of using ChatGPT within clinical medicine and notably, its implications for medical education. This exploration is crucial in a transformative era where AI could potentially augment human capability in the process of knowledge creation and dissemination, potentially revolutionizing medical education and clinical practice. The importance of maintaining academic integrity and professional standards is highlighted. The relevance of establishing clear guidelines for the responsible and ethical use of AI technologies in clinical medicine and medical education is also emphasized.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".