Harnessing the Power of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Pathology Education: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT.—: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are rapidly transforming numerous fields, including pathology, and hold significant potential to revolutionize educational approaches. OBJECTIVE.—: To explore the application of generative AI, particularly large language models and multimodal tools, for enhancing pathology education. We describe their potential to create personalized learning experiences, streamline content development, expand access to educational resources, and support both learners and educators throughout the training and practice continuum. DATA SOURCES.—: We draw on insights from existing literature on AI in education and the collective expertise of the coauthors within this rapidly evolving field. Case studies highlight practical applications of large language models, demonstrating both the potential benefits and unique challenges associated with implementing these technologies in pathology education. CONCLUSIONS.—: Generative AI presents a powerful tool kit for enriching pathology education, offering opportunities for greater engagement, accessibility, and personalization. Careful consideration of ethical implications, potential risks, and appropriate mitigation strategies is essential for the responsible and effective integration of these technologies. Future success lies in fostering collaborative development between AI experts and medical educators, prioritizing ongoing human oversight and transparency to ensure that generative AI augments, rather than supplants, the vital role of educators in pathology training and practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".