Perceptions and Earliest Experiences of Medical Students and Faculty With ChatGPT in Medical Education: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies, there is a growing interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence-based tools like ChatGPT in medical education. However, there is limited research on the initial perceptions and experiences of faculty and students with ChatGPT, particularly in Saudi Arabia. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the earliest knowledge, perceived benefits, concerns, and limitations of using ChatGPT in medical education among faculty and students at a leading Saudi Arabian university. METHODS: A qualitative exploratory study was conducted in April 2023, involving focused meetings with medical faculty and students with varying levels of ChatGPT experience. A thematic analysis was used to identify key themes and subthemes emerging from the discussions. RESULTS: Participants demonstrated good knowledge of ChatGPT and its functions. The main themes were perceptions of ChatGPT use, potential benefits, and concerns about ChatGPT in research and medical education. The perceived benefits included collecting and summarizing information and saving time and effort. However, concerns and limitations centered around the potential lack of critical thinking in the information provided, the ambiguity of references, limitations of access, trust in the output of ChatGPT, and ethical concerns. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable insights into the perceptions and experiences of medical faculty and students regarding the use of newly introduced large language models like ChatGPT in medical education. While the benefits of ChatGPT were recognized, participants also expressed concerns and limitations requiring further studies for effective integration into medical education, exploring the impact of ChatGPT on learning outcomes, student and faculty satisfaction, and the development of critical thinking skills.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".