MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405123909 · doi:10.1177/20552076241298485

A mixed methods crossover randomized controlled trial exploring the experiences, perceptions, and usability of artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) in health sciences education

2024· article· en· W4405123909 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mirella Veras, Joseph-Omer Dyer, Holly Shannon, Bryce J. M. Bogie, Morgan Rooney, Harmehr Sekhon, Derek Rutherford, Paulo Goberlânio de Barros Silva, Dahlia Kairy

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreCarleton UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityPerceptionRandomized controlled trialPsychologyCrossoverMedical educationApplied psychologyComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) integrated programs such as Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformers (ChatGPT) are becoming more widespread in educational settings, with mounting ethical and reliability concerns regarding its usage. This paper explores the experiences, perceptions, and usability of ChatGPT in undergraduate health sciences students. Methods: Twenty-seven students at Carleton University (Canada) were enrolled in a crossover randomized controlled trial study from a Health Sciences course during the Fall 2023 academic term. The intervention condition involved the use of ChatGPT-3.5, whereas the control condition involved using conventional web-based tools. Technology usability was compared between ChatGPT-3.5 and the traditional tools using questionnaires. Focus group discussions were conducted with seven students to further elaborate on student perceptions and experiences. Reflexive thematic analysis was employed to identify themes from the focus group data. Results: Easiness of learnability for personal use and a perception of quick learnability towards ChatGPT-3.5 were significantly higher, compared to conventional online tools from the Systems Usability Scale. Qualitative results highlighted strong benefits of ChatGPT-3.5, such as being a tool for increased overall productivity and brainstorming. However, students identified challenges associated with reliability and accuracy, and concerns about academic integrity. Conclusions: Despite the benefits and positive usability of ChatGPT-3.5 identified by students, an explicit need for the development of policies, procedures and regulations remains. An established framework of best practices for the usage of AI within health science education is necessary. This will ensure accountability of users and lead to a more effective integration of AI technologies into academic settings.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital HealthSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207