Using ChatGPT as a Learning Tool in Acupuncture Education: Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ChatGPT (Open AI) is a state-of-the-art artificial intelligence model with potential applications in the medical fields of clinical practice, research, and education. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the potential of ChatGPT as an educational tool in college acupuncture programs, focusing on its ability to support students in learning acupuncture point selection, treatment planning, and decision-making. METHODS: We collected case studies published in Acupuncture in Medicine between June 2022 and May 2023. Both ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 were used to generate suggestions for acupuncture points based on case presentations. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to compare the number of acupuncture points generated by ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4, and the overlapping ratio of acupuncture points was calculated. RESULTS: Among the 21 case studies, 14 studies were included for analysis. ChatGPT-4 generated significantly more acupuncture points (9.0, SD 1.1) compared to ChatGPT-3.5 (5.6, SD 0.6; P<.001). The overlapping ratios of acupuncture points for ChatGPT-3.5 (0.40, SD 0.28) and ChatGPT-4 (0.34, SD 0.27; P=.67) were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT may be a useful educational tool for acupuncture students, providing valuable insights into personalized treatment plans. However, it cannot fully replace traditional diagnostic methods, and further studies are needed to ensure its safe and effective implementation in acupuncture education.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".