ChatGPT in Medical Education: Bibliometric and Visual Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: ChatGPT is a generative artificial intelligence-based chatbot developed by OpenAI. Since its release in the second half of 2022, it has been widely applied across various fields. In particular, the application of ChatGPT in medical education has become a significant trend. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the research developments and trends regarding ChatGPT in medical education, we conducted an extensive review and analysis of the current state of research in this field. Objective: This study used bibliometric and visualization analysis to explore the current state of research and development trends regarding ChatGPT in medical education. Methods: A bibliometric analysis of 407 articles on ChatGPT in medical education published between March 2023 and June 2025 was conducted using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Bibliometrix (RTool of RStudio). Visualization of countries, institutions, journals, authors, keywords, and references was also conducted. Results: This bibliometric analysis included a total of 407 studies. Research in this field began in 2023, showing a notable surge in annual publications until June 2025. The United States, China, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and Canada produced the most publications. Networks of collaboration also formed among institutions. The University of California system was a core research institution, with 3.4% (14/407) of the publications and 0.17 betweenness centrality. BMC Medical Education, Medical Teacher, and the Journal of Medical Internet Research were all among the top 10 journals in terms of both publication volume and citation frequency. The most prolific author was Yavuz Selim Kiyak, who has established a stable collaboration network with Isil Irem Budakoglu and Ozlem Coskun. Author collaboration in this field is usually limited, with most academic research conducted by independent teams and little communication between teams. The most frequent keywords were "AI," "ChatGPT," and "medical education." Keyword analysis further revealed "educational assessment," "exam," and "clinical practice" as current research hot spots. The most cited paper was "Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-Assisted Medical Education Using Large Language Models," and the paper with the strongest citation burst was "Are ChatGPT's Knowledge and Interpretation Ability Comparable to Those of Medical Students in Korea for Taking a Parasitology Examination?: A Descriptive Study." Both papers focus on evaluating ChatGPT's performance in medical exams. Conclusions: This study reveals the significant potential of ChatGPT in medical education. As the technology improves, its applications will expand into more fields. To promote the diversification and effectiveness of ChatGPT in medical education, future research should strengthen interregional collaboration and enhance research quality. These findings provide valuable insights for researchers to identify research perspectives and guide future research directions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.050 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".