Impact of Clinical Decision Support Systems on Medical Students’ Case-Solving Performance: Comparison Study with a Focus Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health care practitioners use clinical decision support systems (CDSS) as an aid in the crucial task of clinical reasoning and decision-making. Traditional CDSS are online repositories (ORs) and clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Recently, large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have emerged as potential alternatives. They have proven to be powerful, innovative tools, yet they are not devoid of worrisome risks. Objective: This study aims to explore how medical students perform in an evaluated clinical case through the use of different CDSS tools. Methods: The authors randomly divided medical students into 3 groups, CPG, n=6 (38%); OR, n=5 (31%); and ChatGPT, n=5 (31%); and assigned each group a different type of CDSS for guidance in answering prespecified questions, assessing how students' speed and ability at resolving the same clinical case varied accordingly. External reviewers evaluated all answers based on accuracy and completeness metrics (score: 1-5). The authors analyzed and categorized group scores according to the skill investigated: differential diagnosis, diagnostic workup, and clinical decision-making. Results: Answering time showed a trend for the ChatGPT group to be the fastest. The mean scores for completeness were as follows: CPG 4.0, OR 3.7, and ChatGPT 3.8 (P=.49). The mean scores for accuracy were as follows: CPG 4.0, OR 3.3, and ChatGPT 3.7 (P=.02). Aggregating scores according to the 3 students' skill domains, trends in differences among the groups emerge more clearly, with the CPG group that performed best in nearly all domains and maintained almost perfect alignment between its completeness and accuracy. Conclusions: This hands-on session provided valuable insights into the potential perks and associated pitfalls of LLMs in medical education and practice. It suggested the critical need to include teachings in medical degree courses on how to properly take advantage of LLMs, as the potential for misuse is evident and real.
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 | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".