Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38717811›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

ChatGPT as a Tool for Medical Education and Clinical Decision-Making on the Wards: Case Study.

Anthony Skryd, Katharine Lawrence

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07199231 (A Comparative Performance Evaluation of Four Publicly Available Large Language Models Against Gold Standard Medical References), which is not on this 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
–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.

NCT07199231 active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Comparative Performance Evaluation of Four Publicly Available Large Language Models Against Gold Standard Medical References

TypeobservationalSponsorCambridge Health AllianceRan2025 to 2026Enrolled20ConditionsAI (Artificial Intelligence), Large Language Model, Generative Artificial IntelligenceArmsAI clinical reference tool
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Reimagining pharmacology education.Pharmacological reviews · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  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.

Anthony SkrydDepartment of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York City, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5230-5029
Katharine LawrenceDepartment of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5640-2138

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are computational artificial intelligence systems with advanced natural language processing capabilities that have recently been popularized among health care students and educators due to their ability to provide real-time access to a vast amount of medical knowledge. The adoption of LLM technology into medical education and training has varied, and little empirical evidence exists to support its use in clinical teaching environments.

objectiveThe aim of the study is to identify and qualitatively evaluate potential use cases and limitations of LLM technology for real-time ward-based educational contexts.

methodsA brief, single-site exploratory evaluation of the publicly available ChatGPT-3.5 (OpenAI) was conducted by implementing the tool into the daily attending rounds of a general internal medicine inpatient service at a large urban academic medical center. ChatGPT was integrated into rounds via both structured and organic use, using the web-based "chatbot" style interface to interact with the LLM through conversational free-text and discrete queries. A qualitative approach using phenomenological inquiry was used to identify key insights related to the use of ChatGPT through analysis of ChatGPT conversation logs and associated shorthand notes from the clinical sessions.

resultsIdentified use cases for ChatGPT integration included addressing medical knowledge gaps through discrete medical knowledge inquiries, building differential diagnoses and engaging dual-process thinking, challenging medical axioms, using cognitive aids to support acute care decision-making, and improving complex care management by facilitating conversations with subspecialties. Potential additional uses included engaging in difficult conversations with patients, exploring ethical challenges and general medical ethics teaching, personal continuing medical education resources, developing ward-based teaching tools, supporting and automating clinical documentation, and supporting productivity and task management. LLM biases, misinformation, ethics, and health equity were identified as areas of concern and potential limitations to clinical and training use. A code of conduct on ethical and appropriate use was also developed to guide team usage on the wards.

conclusionsOverall, ChatGPT offers a novel tool to enhance ward-based learning through rapid information querying, second-order content exploration, and engaged team discussion regarding generated responses. More research is needed to fully understand contexts for educational use, particularly regarding the risks and limitations of the tool in clinical settings and its impacts on trainee development.

Indexed as

ChatGPTclinical decision-makinglarge language modelsLLMsmedical education

Identifiers

PMID38717811
PMCPMC11112466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.