Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39537899›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Leveraging large language models to construct feedback from medical multiple-choice Questions.

Mihaela Tomova, Iván Roselló Atanet, Victoria Sehy, Miriam Sieg, Maren März, Patrick Mäder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Mihaela TomovaData-Intensive Systems and Visualization Group (dAI.SY), Fakultät für Informatik und Automatisierung, Technische Universität Ilmenau, Ehrenbergstraße 29, 98693, Ilmenau, Thuringia, Germany. mihaela-todorova.tomova@tu-ilmenau.de.
Iván Roselló AtanetAG Progress Test Medizin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Victoria SehyAG Progress Test Medizin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Miriam SiegAG Progress Test Medizin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Maren MärzAG Progress Test Medizin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Patrick MäderData-Intensive Systems and Visualization Group (dAI.SY), Fakultät für Informatik und Automatisierung, Technische Universität Ilmenau, Ehrenbergstraße 29, 98693, Ilmenau, Thuringia, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exams like the formative Progress Test Medizin can enhance their effectiveness by offering feedback beyond numerical scores. Content-based feedback, which encompasses relevant information from exam questions, can be valuable for students by offering them insight into their performance on the current exam, as well as serving as study aids and tools for revision. Our goal was to utilize Large Language Models (LLMs) in preparing content-based feedback for the Progress Test Medizin and evaluate their effectiveness in this task. We utilize two popular LLMs and conduct a comparative assessment by performing textual similarity on the generated outputs. Furthermore, we study via a survey how medical practitioners and medical educators assess the capabilities of LLMs and perceive the usage of LLMs for the task of generating content-based feedback for PTM exams. Our findings show that both examined LLMs performed similarly. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages. Our survey results indicate that one LLM produces slightly better outputs; however, this comes at a cost since it is a paid service, while the other is free to use. Overall, medical practitioners and educators who participated in the survey find the generated feedback relevant and useful, and they are open to using LLMs for such tasks in the future. We conclude that while the content-based feedback generated by the LLM may not be perfect, it nevertheless can be considered a valuable addition to the numerical feedback currently provided.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementEducation, MedicalFeedbackFormative FeedbackHumansLanguageStudents, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesData analysisFeedbackLarge language modelsMachine learningNatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID39537899
PMCPMC11561272

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.