Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38217884›Full record

ArticleMedical education online2024

Challenge, integration, and change: ChatGPT and future anatomical education.

Lige Leng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical education online, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Does ChatGPT know basic human anatomy?Anatomy & cell biology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Lige LengFujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Neurodegenerative Disease and Aging Research, Institute of Neuroscience, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, P.R. China.ORCID 0000-0002-4288-4743

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the vigorous development of ChatGPT and its application in the field of education, a new era of the collaborative development of human and artificial intelligence and the symbiosis of education has come. Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into medical education has the potential to revolutionize it. Large language models, such as ChatGPT, can be used as virtual teaching aids to provide students with individualized and immediate medical knowledge, and conduct interactive simulation learning and detection. In this paper, we discuss the application of ChatGPT in anatomy teaching and its various application levels based on our own teaching experiences, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of ChatGPT in anatomy teaching. ChatGPT increases student engagement and strengthens students' ability to learn independently. At the same time, ChatGPT faces many challenges and limitations in medical education. Medical educators must keep pace with the rapid changes in technology, taking into account ChatGPT's impact on curriculum design, assessment strategies and teaching methods. Discussing the application of ChatGPT in medical education, especially anatomy teaching, is helpful to the effective integration and application of artificial intelligence tools in medical education.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceStudentsCurriculumEducational StatusHumansLearninganatomyartificial intelligenceChatGPTeducational reformmedical education

Identifiers

PMID38217884
PMCPMC10791098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.