Incorporating ChatGPT in Medical Informatics Education: Mixed Methods Study on Student Perceptions and Experiential Integration Proposals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as ChatGPT, in the educational landscape has the potential to enhance the learning experience of medical informatics students and prepare them for using AI in professional settings. The incorporation of AI in classes aims to develop critical thinking by encouraging students to interact with ChatGPT and critically analyze the responses generated by the chatbot. This approach also helps students develop important skills in the field of biomedical and health informatics to enhance their interaction with AI tools. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to explore the perceptions of students regarding the use of ChatGPT as a learning tool in their educational context and provide professors with examples of prompts for incorporating ChatGPT into their teaching and learning activities, thereby enhancing the educational experience for students in medical informatics courses. METHODS: This study used a mixed methods approach to gain insights from students regarding the use of ChatGPT in education. To accomplish this, a structured questionnaire was applied to evaluate students' familiarity with ChatGPT, gauge their perceptions of its use, and understand their attitudes toward its use in academic and learning tasks. Learning outcomes of 2 courses were analyzed to propose ChatGPT's incorporation in master's programs in medicine and medical informatics. RESULTS: The majority of students expressed satisfaction with the use of ChatGPT in education, finding it beneficial for various purposes, including generating academic content, brainstorming ideas, and rewriting text. While some participants raised concerns about potential biases and the need for informed use, the overall perception was positive. Additionally, the study proposed integrating ChatGPT into 2 specific courses in the master's programs in medicine and medical informatics. The incorporation of ChatGPT was envisioned to enhance student learning experiences and assist in project planning, programming code generation, examination preparation, workflow exploration, and technical interview preparation, thus advancing medical informatics education. In medical teaching, it will be used as an assistant for simplifying the explanation of concepts and solving complex problems, as well as for generating clinical narratives and patient simulators. CONCLUSIONS: The study's valuable insights into medical faculty students' perspectives and integration proposals for ChatGPT serve as an informative guide for professors aiming to enhance medical informatics education. The research delves into the potential of ChatGPT, emphasizes the necessity of collaboration in academic environments, identifies subject areas with discernible benefits, and underscores its transformative role in fostering innovative and engaging learning experiences. The envisaged proposals hold promise in empowering future health care professionals to work in the rapidly evolving era of digital health care.
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 | 0.026 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".