ArticleHeliyon2025
Can ChatGPT be used as an education assistant in the field of health sciences? Examining with the integration of meta-analysis and co-citation analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Meta-analysis studies are frequently included in the literature, but studies integrated with co-citation analysis are very few. There is no study that evaluates the success of ChatGPT in the field of health sciences, especially by integrating these two methods. Objective: This study aims to reveal whether ChatGPT can be used as an educational assistant by comparing the performance of students in exams in the field of health sciences with ChatGPT through the integration of meta-analysis and co-citation analysis. Methods: We searched Web of Science for articles until May 2024. The studies comparing students' exam performances with ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 versions in the field of health sciences were included in the meta-analysis. Co-citation analysis was performed for the references of the studies included in the meta-analysis and the relationship between the studies and the references was examined. Results: It is seen that the exam performance of the students is better than ChatGPT 3.5 (OR = 3.173, 95 % CI (1.132-8.869). In the co-citation analysis, three clusters were obtained. It is seen that the exam performances of ChatGPT 4.0 are better than the students (OR = 2.589, 95 % CI (1.046-6.409). In the co-citation analysis obtained with the references of these four studies, two clusters were identified. The most cited studies, namely Kung et al., Aidan et al., and Hopkins et al., intersect in one cluster. Conclusion: The results obtained with the integration of meta-analysis and co-citation analysis are agree with the literature for both ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0. In general, using co-citation analysis and meta-analysis together, increases the depth and scope of the analysis. The results obtained in these analyzes also show that the use of ChatGPT as an educational assistant in the field of health sciences is increasing day by day.
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.