The Use of ChatGPT for Education Modules on Integrated Pharmacotherapy of Infectious Disease: Educators' Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial Intelligence (AI) plays an important role in many fields, including medical education, practice, and research. Many medical educators started using ChatGPT at the end of 2022 for many purposes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the potential uses, benefits, and risks of using ChatGPT in education modules on integrated pharmacotherapy of infectious disease. METHODS: A content analysis was conducted to investigate the applications of ChatGPT in education modules on integrated pharmacotherapy of infectious disease. Questions pertaining to curriculum development, syllabus design, lecture note preparation, and examination construction were posed during data collection. Three experienced professors rated the appropriateness and precision of the answers provided by ChatGPT. The consensus rating was considered. The professors also discussed the prospective applications, benefits, and risks of ChatGPT in this educational setting. RESULTS: ChatGPT demonstrated the ability to contribute to various aspects of curriculum design, with ratings ranging from 50% to 92% for appropriateness and accuracy. However, there were limitations and risks associated with its use, including incomplete syllabi, the absence of essential learning objectives, and the inability to design valid questionnaires and qualitative studies. It was suggested that educators use ChatGPT as a resource rather than relying primarily on its output. There are recommendations for effectively incorporating ChatGPT into the curriculum of the education modules on integrated pharmacotherapy of infectious disease. CONCLUSIONS: Medical and health sciences educators can use ChatGPT as a guide in many aspects related to the development of the curriculum of the education modules on integrated pharmacotherapy of infectious disease, syllabus design, lecture notes preparation, and examination preparation with caution.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".