ReviewBritish journal of biomedical science2024
Education and Training Assessment and Artificial Intelligence. A Pragmatic Guide for Educators.
Review in British journal of biomedical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital case-library and dual-mentor teaching for medical laboratory science internships in China: a historical comparison educational evaluation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Navigating opportunities and challenges of generative AI in higher education: towards responsible, equitable, and human-centered integration.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Clinical assessment meets laboratory science: adapting OSCE methodology for authentic biosciences evaluation in the age of generative AI.Emerging topics in life sciences · 2025Article
- Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity.British journal of biomedical science · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emergence of ChatGPT and similar new Generative AI tools has created concern about the validity of many current assessment methods in higher education, since learners might use these tools to complete those assessments. Here we review the current evidence on this issue and show that for assessments like essays and multiple-choice exams, these concerns are legitimate: ChatGPT can complete them to a very high standard, quickly and cheaply. We consider how to assess learning in alternative ways, and the importance of retaining assessments of foundational core knowledge. This evidence is considered from the perspective of current professional regulations covering the professional registration of Biomedical Scientists and their Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) approved education providers, although it should be broadly relevant across higher education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.