Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38450035›Full record

ArticleNarra J2023

ChatGPT applications in medical, dental, pharmacy, and public health education: A descriptive study highlighting the advantages and limitations.

Malik Sallam, Nesreen A Salim, Muna Barakat, Ala'a B Al-Tammemi

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Narra J, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

91 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Malik SallamDepartment of Pathology, Microbiology and Forensic Medicine, School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Nesreen A SalimDepartment of Prosthodontic, School of Dentistry, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Muna BarakatDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan.
Ala'a B Al-TammemiMigration Health Division, International Organization for Migration (IOM), The UN Migration Agency, Amman, Jordan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since its public release in November 2022, ChatGPT has gained a widespread attention and received mixed responses in the academia. Promising applications of ChatGPT in university education has been suggested; however, several concerns were raised. The aim of this descriptive study was to investigate the pros and cons of ChatGPT use in medical, dental, pharmacy, and public health education. Based on expert panel discussion and review of the existing literature, specific and concise ChatGPT prompts were constructed and the responses were generated on 25 February 2023. Out data suggested that in medical education, ChatGPT benefits included the possibility of improving personalized learning, clinical reasoning and understanding of complex medical concepts. The benefits listed in the context of dental education included improved skills through step- by-step instructions and interactive content, with instant feedback on student techniques. In pharmacy education, the advantages included possible explanations of complex subjects and the deployment of interactive tools aiding to develop skills for patient counselling. In public health education, the listed benefits included providing explanations and case scenarios, besides improved skills in data analysis and literature review. The limitations listed based on ChatGPT-generated content were common across all of the investigated healthcare disciplines and included data privacy issues, risk of generating biased and inaccurate content, and the risk of deterioration of critical thinking and communication skills among healthcare students. The ChatGPT-generated content in the context of healthcare education was deemed partially helpful by the expert panel. However, several important points regarding the pros and cons of ChatGPT use in medical, dental, pharmacy and public health education were missed by ChatGPT- generated content including: the risk of plagiarism, copyright issues, the risk of academic dishonesty, and the lack of personal and emotional interactions necessary for developing proper communication skills in healthcare education. In conclusion, despite the promising prospects of ChatGPT in healthcare education, several drawbacks should be addressed with implementation of guidelines for proper use to ensure exploiting the benefits of this innovative technology.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceeducationhealthcaremachine learningtechnology

Identifiers

PMID38450035
PMCPMC10914078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.