Assessing ChatGPT’s Competency in Addressing Interdisciplinary Inquiries on Chatbot Uses in Sports Rehabilitation: Simulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ChatGPT showcases exceptional conversational capabilities and extensive cross-disciplinary knowledge. In addition, it can perform multiple roles in a single chat session. This unique multirole-playing feature positions ChatGPT as a promising tool for exploring interdisciplinary subjects. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate ChatGPT's competency in addressing interdisciplinary inquiries based on a case study exploring the opportunities and challenges of chatbot uses in sports rehabilitation. METHODS: We developed a model termed PanelGPT to assess ChatGPT's competency in addressing interdisciplinary topics through simulated panel discussions. Taking chatbot uses in sports rehabilitation as an example of an interdisciplinary topic, we prompted ChatGPT through PanelGPT to role-play a physiotherapist, psychologist, nutritionist, artificial intelligence expert, and athlete in a simulated panel discussion. During the simulation, we posed questions to the panel while ChatGPT acted as both the panelists for responses and the moderator for steering the discussion. We performed the simulation using ChatGPT-4 and evaluated the responses by referring to the literature and our human expertise. RESULTS: By tackling questions related to chatbot uses in sports rehabilitation with respect to patient education, physiotherapy, physiology, nutrition, and ethical considerations, responses from the ChatGPT-simulated panel discussion reasonably pointed to various benefits such as 24/7 support, personalized advice, automated tracking, and reminders. ChatGPT also correctly emphasized the importance of patient education, and identified challenges such as limited interaction modes, inaccuracies in emotion-related advice, assurance of data privacy and security, transparency in data handling, and fairness in model training. It also stressed that chatbots are to assist as a copilot, not to replace human health care professionals in the rehabilitation process. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT exhibits strong competency in addressing interdisciplinary inquiry by simulating multiple experts from complementary backgrounds, with significant implications in assisting 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".