MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387829826 · doi:10.2196/49877

ChatGPT Interactive Medical Simulations for Early Clinical Education: Case Study

2023· article· en· W4387829826 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Riley Scherr, Faris F Halaseh, Aidin Spina, Saman Andalib, Ronald Rivera

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCurriculumTest (biology)CreativityMedical educationMedical physicsMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The transition to clinical clerkships can be difficult for medical students, as it requires the synthesis and application of preclinical information into diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. ChatGPT-a generative language model with many medical applications due to its creativity, memory, and accuracy-can help students in this transition. OBJECTIVE: This paper models ChatGPT 3.5's ability to perform interactive clinical simulations and shows this tool's benefit to medical education. METHODS: Simulation starting prompts were refined using ChatGPT 3.5 in Google Chrome. Starting prompts were selected based on assessment format, stepwise progression of simulation events and questions, free-response question type, responsiveness to user inputs, postscenario feedback, and medical accuracy of the feedback. The chosen scenarios were advanced cardiac life support and medical intensive care (for sepsis and pneumonia). RESULTS: Two starting prompts were chosen. Prompt 1 was developed through 3 test simulations and used successfully in 2 simulations. Prompt 2 was developed through 10 additional test simulations and used successfully in 1 simulation. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT is capable of creating simulations for early clinical education. These simulations let students practice novel parts of the clinical curriculum, such as forming independent diagnostic and therapeutic impressions over an entire patient encounter. Furthermore, the simulations can adapt to user inputs in a way that replicates real life more accurately than premade question bank clinical vignettes. Finally, ChatGPT can create potentially unlimited free simulations with specific feedback, which increases access for medical students with lower socioeconomic status and underresourced medical schools. However, no tool is perfect, and ChatGPT is no exception; there are concerns about simulation accuracy and replicability that need to be addressed to further optimize ChatGPT's performance as an educational resource.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.615
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations113
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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