Impact of ChatGPT and Large Language Models on Radiology Education: Association of Academic Radiology—Radiology Research Alliance Task Force White Paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence, including large language models (LLMs), holds immense potential to enhance healthcare, medical education, and health research. Recognizing the transformative opportunities and potential risks afforded by LLMs, the Association of Academic Radiology-Radiology Research Alliance convened a task force to explore the promise and pitfalls of using LLMs such as ChatGPT in radiology. This white paper explores the impact of LLMs on radiology education, highlighting their potential to enrich curriculum development, teaching and learning, and learner assessment. Despite these advantages, the implementation of LLMs presents challenges, including limits on accuracy and transparency, the risk of misinformation, data privacy issues, and potential biases, which must be carefully considered. We provide recommendations for the successful integration of LLMs and LLM-based educational tools into radiology education programs, emphasizing assessment of the technological readiness of LLMs for specific use cases, structured planning, regular evaluation, faculty development, increased training opportunities, academic-industry collaboration, and research on best practices for employing LLMs in 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 | 0.048 | 0.210 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".