Evaluating the application of ChatGPT in China’s residency training education: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of information generated by ChatGPT for residency education in China. METHODS: We designed a three-step survey to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT in China's residency training education including residency final examination questions, patient cases, and resident satisfaction scores. First, 204 questions from the residency final exam were input into ChatGPT's interface to obtain the percentage of correct answers. Next, ChatGPT was asked to generate 20 clinical cases, which were subsequently evaluated by three instructors using a pre-designed Likert scale with 5 points. The quality of the cases was assessed based on criteria including clarity, relevance, logicality, credibility, and comprehensiveness. Finally, interaction sessions between 31 third-year residents and ChatGPT were conducted. Residents' perceptions of ChatGPT's feedback were assessed using a Likert scale, focusing on aspects such as ease of use, accuracy and completeness of responses, and its effectiveness in enhancing understanding of medical knowledge. RESULTS: Our results showed ChatGPT-3.5 correctly answered 45.1% of exam questions. In the virtual patient cases, ChatGPT received mean ratings of 4.57 ± 0.50, 4.68 ± 0.47, 4.77 ± 0.46, 4.60 ± 0.53, and 3.95 ± 0.59 points for clarity, relevance, logicality, credibility, and comprehensiveness from clinical instructors, respectively. Among training residents, ChatGPT scored 4.48 ± 0.70, 4.00 ± 0.82 and 4.61 ± 0.50 points for ease of use, accuracy and completeness, and usefulness, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate ChatGPT's immense potential for personalized Chinese medical 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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".