Assessing the Current Limitations of Large Language Models in Advancing Health Care Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled: The integration of large language models (LLMs), as seen with the generative pretrained transformers series, into health care education and clinical management represents a transformative potential. The practical use of current LLMs in health care sparks great anticipation for new avenues, yet its embracement also elicits considerable concerns that necessitate careful deliberation. This study aims to evaluate the application of state-of-the-art LLMs in health care education, highlighting the following shortcomings as areas requiring significant and urgent improvements: (1) threats to academic integrity, (2) dissemination of misinformation and risks of automation bias, (3) challenges with information completeness and consistency, (4) inequity of access, (5) risks of algorithmic bias, (6) exhibition of moral instability, (7) technological limitations in plugin tools, and (8) lack of regulatory oversight in addressing legal and ethical challenges. Future research should focus on strategically addressing the persistent challenges of LLMs highlighted in this paper, opening the door for effective measures that can improve their application in health care 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 | 0.164 | 0.498 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".