ArticleMedical science educator2025
Cognitive Domain Assessment of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: A Comparative Study Between ChatGPT and Gemini's Understanding of Anatomy Education.
Article in Medical science educator, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of large language models on neuroanatomy-based medical riddles: a comparative study.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence in anatomy education: a systematic review of ChatGPT's effectiveness as a learning tool.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)Article
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
Purpose: The integration of AI chatbots into education has gained traction, particularly in medical fields such as anatomy. This study aims to evaluate and compare the responses of ChatGPT 4o mini and Gemini across different cognitive domains of anatomy education. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the responses of these two AI chatbots to a set of anatomy questions selected from the Manual on Competency-Based Undergraduate Curriculum. Questions were categorized into knowledge, comprehension and application levels of cognitive domain. Responses were scored against an answer key prepared by anatomy experts. Relevant comparative statistical analysis was performed. Results: The overall performance of ChatGPT 4o mini (76.15%) was significantly superior to Gemini (72.84%). In application-level questions, ChatGPT 4o mini outperformed Gemini. Conversely, Gemini scored higher in comprehension-level questions (76.88% vs. 73.66%). Both chatbots exhibited factual inaccuracies and limitations in contextually accurate responses, particularly in application-level questions. Conclusion: Both ChatGPT 4o mini and Gemini demonstrate potential as educational tools in anatomy, with strengths and limitations varying by cognitive domain. While AI chatbots can supplement traditional learning methods, they require ongoing refinement and validation. To ensure the responsible integration of AI into medical education, close attention must be devoted to faculty and student training, setting up relevant IT environment and ethical issues. Future research should focus on expanding question pools, incorporating user feedback and comparing with traditional educational approaches to enhance their effectiveness.
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.