MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404917446 · doi:10.2196/54297

Using ChatGPT in Nursing: Scoping Review of Current Opinions

2024· article· en· W4404917446 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
You Zhou, Sijia Li, Xingyi Tang, Haoming Ma, Aoqi Wang, Runyuan Pei, Meihua Piao

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewStrengths and weaknessesMEDLINEWeb of scienceNursingData extractionNursing practiceMedicineNursing literaturePsychologyAlternative medicineMeta-analysisPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Since the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, this emerging technology has garnered a lot of attention in various fields, and nursing is no exception. However, to date, no study has comprehensively summarized the status and opinions of using ChatGPT across different nursing fields. Objective: We aim to synthesize the status and opinions of using ChatGPT according to different nursing fields, as well as assess ChatGPT's strengths, weaknesses, and the potential impacts it may cause. Methods: This scoping review was conducted following the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and guided by the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). A comprehensive literature research was conducted in 4 web-based databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINHAL) to identify studies reporting the opinions of using ChatGPT in nursing fields from 2022 to September 3, 2023. The references of the included studies were screened manually to further identify relevant studies. Two authors conducted studies screening, eligibility assessments, and data extraction independently. Results: A total of 30 studies were included. The United States (7 studies), Canada (5 studies), and China (4 studies) were countries with the most publications. In terms of fields of concern, studies mainly focused on "ChatGPT and nursing education" (20 studies), "ChatGPT and nursing practice" (10 studies), and "ChatGPT and nursing research, writing, and examination" (6 studies). Six studies addressed the use of ChatGPT in multiple nursing fields. Conclusions: As an emerging artificial intelligence technology, ChatGPT has great potential to revolutionize nursing education, nursing practice, and nursing research. However, researchers, institutions, and administrations still need to critically examine its accuracy, safety, and privacy, as well as academic misconduct and potential ethical issues that it may lead to before applying ChatGPT to 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.100
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.333
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1000.333
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.010
Bibliometrics0.0540.046
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.264
GPT teacher head0.615
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical EducationSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207