ArticlePloS one2026
Designing life science assessments in the era of generative artificial intelligence.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) algorithms have the potential to reshape education. Though GAI may help democratize access to education, it also presents many challenges for educators. Already, the ease of use of GAI has made it easier for students to bypass learning gains by prompting GAI for answers to assignments. Here, we assessed how ChatGPT performed on take-home assignments in a doctoral-level molecular biology course designed to train students in experimental design. Using Bloom's taxonomy as a framework, we hypothesized that ChatGPT would perform similarly to doctoral students on lower cognitive levels involving memorization and underperform at higher levels that rely on critical thinking. Students outperformed ChatGPT, but surprisingly, this result was driven by ChatGPT's poor performance on "remember" and "apply" tasks, which was partially improved by simple prompt engineering. To build assessments more robust to GAI usage, we developed and tested new free-response and multiple-choice assessments. We found a striking deficit in ChatGPT's ability to interpret scientific graphs and raw data in both short-answer and multiple-choice questions, even when using a version specifically designed for image interpretation. Based on our results, we propose several tips for designing out-of-class assessments that promote student learning in the era of GAI.
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.