Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41926387›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Designing life science assessments in the era of generative artificial intelligence.

Andrew C Kwong, Christopher Magnano, Cristina DeOliveira, Christine Goglia, Joseph J Loparo, John Jacob Peters

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Andrew C KwongDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Christopher MagnanoDepartment of Computer Science, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Cristina DeOliveiraDepartment of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Blavatnik Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Christine GogliaProgram in Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3813-5616
Joseph J LoparoDepartment of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Blavatnik Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
John Jacob PetersDepartment of Biology, University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3192-7824

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceBiological Science DisciplinesEducational MeasurementGenerative Artificial IntelligenceAlgorithmsHumansStudents

Identifiers

PMID41926387
PMCPMC13046120

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.