ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)
Artificial intelligence in anatomy education: a systematic review of ChatGPT's effectiveness as a learning tool.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This systematic review evaluated the reliability of ChatGPT as a supportive tool in anatomy education and its performance across various anatomical topics. Following PRISMA guidelines, English-language studies published between 2023 and 2025 were included. Searches were conducted in Google Scholar, PubMed, Springer, and Scopus using the keywords "ChatGPT," "anatomy," and "education." Results: After removing duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, 26 full-text articles were reviewed. Quality assessment using Joanna Briggs Institute criteria rated 22 articles as moderate quality, 1 as high quality, and 3 as low quality; low-quality studies were excluded, leaving 23 articles for analysis. Accuracy rates ranged from 75.2% to 98.6% for ChatGPT-4o, 4.0% to 97.3% for ChatGPT-4, 28.0% to 72.0% for ChatGPT-3.5, and 34.2% to 67.2% for unspecified models. ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo showed 38.4% accuracy in one study, and ChatGPT-4o Mini, 89.2%. Gross anatomy was the most addressed topic (29.0%), followed by thoracic (9.7%), abdominal, upper extremity, and musculoskeletal anatomy (6.5%). ChatGPT-3.5 was the most used model (46.4%), followed by ChatGPT-4 (29.6%), ChatGPT-4o (7.1%), and ChatGPT-4o Mini (7.1%). Conclusion: ChatGPT has potential as a complementary tool in anatomy education, yet careful evaluation and further evidence-based research are needed to improve its reliability and 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.