Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38506920›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2024

Incorporating ChatGPT in Medical Informatics Education: Mixed Methods Study on Student Perceptions and Experiential Integration Proposals.

Sabrina Magalhães Araujo, Ricardo Cruz-Correia

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Sabrina Magalhães Araujo *Center for Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-1443-2106
Ricardo Cruz-Correia *Center for Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3764-5158
Universidade do Porto · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as ChatGPT, in the educational landscape has the potential to enhance the learning experience of medical informatics students and prepare them for using AI in professional settings. The incorporation of AI in classes aims to develop critical thinking by encouraging students to interact with ChatGPT and critically analyze the responses generated by the chatbot. This approach also helps students develop important skills in the field of biomedical and health informatics to enhance their interaction with AI tools.

objectiveThe aim of the study is to explore the perceptions of students regarding the use of ChatGPT as a learning tool in their educational context and provide professors with examples of prompts for incorporating ChatGPT into their teaching and learning activities, thereby enhancing the educational experience for students in medical informatics courses.

methodsThis study used a mixed methods approach to gain insights from students regarding the use of ChatGPT in education. To accomplish this, a structured questionnaire was applied to evaluate students' familiarity with ChatGPT, gauge their perceptions of its use, and understand their attitudes toward its use in academic and learning tasks. Learning outcomes of 2 courses were analyzed to propose ChatGPT's incorporation in master's programs in medicine and medical informatics.

resultsThe majority of students expressed satisfaction with the use of ChatGPT in education, finding it beneficial for various purposes, including generating academic content, brainstorming ideas, and rewriting text. While some participants raised concerns about potential biases and the need for informed use, the overall perception was positive. Additionally, the study proposed integrating ChatGPT into 2 specific courses in the master's programs in medicine and medical informatics. The incorporation of ChatGPT was envisioned to enhance student learning experiences and assist in project planning, programming code generation, examination preparation, workflow exploration, and technical interview preparation, thus advancing medical informatics education. In medical teaching, it will be used as an assistant for simplifying the explanation of concepts and solving complex problems, as well as for generating clinical narratives and patient simulators.

conclusionsThe study's valuable insights into medical faculty students' perspectives and integration proposals for ChatGPT serve as an informative guide for professors aiming to enhance medical informatics education. The research delves into the potential of ChatGPT, emphasizes the necessity of collaboration in academic environments, identifies subject areas with discernible benefits, and underscores its transformative role in fostering innovative and engaging learning experiences. The envisaged proposals hold promise in empowering future health care professionals to work in the rapidly evolving era of digital health care.

Indexed as

Medical InformaticsStudents, MedicalArtificial IntelligenceEducational StatusFaculty, MedicalHumansAIartificial intelligenceChatGPTeducationgenerative language modelmedical informatics

Identifiers

PMID38506920
PMCPMC10993110
OpenAlexW4388557469

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.