ReviewCureus2025
Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities of ChatGPT in University Teaching for Health Sciences: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Among generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) has seen rapid adoption in the education sector due to its accessibility and versatility. While it supports a wide range of academic tasks, it also has significant limitations. Its difficulty in fully understanding the context of the conversations can lead to vague or inaccurate responses, raising questions about its reliability in educational and healthcare settings, where contextual accuracy is paramount. This narrative review aims to explore the challenges and prospects of using ChatGPT as a support tool in health science teaching and learning processes at the university level. A review of the scientific literature on the use of generative artificial intelligence was conducted in the main databases between April and May of 2025. Studies published between January 2023 and March 27, 2025, were included to access the most up-to-date information available. The studies had to focus on the use of generative AI in higher education settings, specifically in the field of health sciences. A total of 18 documents met the inclusion criteria and were selected for analysis. The results reveal that ChatGPT is widely used in undergraduate health education for tasks such as providing writing support, helping with content comprehension, generating quizzes, creating clinical simulations, and designing curricula. However, challenges such as misinformation, ethical concerns, and overreliance on AI were frequently noted. Additionally, disparities in access and lack of formal training for both students and educators were revealed to be significant barriers. In conclusion, ChatGPT has significant potential to improve teaching and learning in health sciences education by providing personalized support, real-time feedback, and resource creation. However, effectively integrating ChatGPT into health sciences education requires paying special attention to ethical standards, equitable access, and developing digital literacy to ensure it complements, rather than replaces, fundamental human expertise.
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.