ChatGPT in Nuclear Medicine Education.

IF 1 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Journal of nuclear medicine technology Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-11 DOI:10.2967/jnmt.123.265844
Geoffrey Currie, Kym Barry
{"title":"ChatGPT in Nuclear Medicine Education.","authors":"Geoffrey Currie, Kym Barry","doi":"10.2967/jnmt.123.265844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Academic integrity has been challenged by artificial intelligence algorithms in teaching institutions, including those providing nuclear medicine training. The GPT 3.5-powered ChatGPT chatbot released in late November 2022 has emerged as an immediate threat to academic and scientific writing. <b>Methods:</b> Both examinations and written assignments for nuclear medicine courses were tested using ChatGPT. Included was a mix of core theory subjects offered in the second and third years of the nuclear medicine science course. Long-answer-style questions (8 subjects) and calculation-style questions (2 subjects) were included for examinations. ChatGPT was also used to produce responses to authentic writing tasks (6 subjects). ChatGPT responses were evaluated by Turnitin plagiarism-detection software for similarity and artificial intelligence scores, scored against standardized rubrics, and compared with the mean performance of student cohorts. <b>Results:</b> ChatGPT powered by GPT 3.5 performed poorly in the 2 calculation examinations (overall, 31.7% compared with 67.3% for students), with particularly poor performance in complex-style questions. ChatGPT failed each of 6 written tasks (overall, 38.9% compared with 67.2% for students), with worsening performance corresponding to increasing writing and research expectations in the third year. In the 8 examinations, ChatGPT performed better than students for general or early subjects but poorly for advanced and specific subjects (overall, 51% compared with 57.4% for students). <b>Conclusion:</b> Although ChatGPT poses a risk to academic integrity, its usefulness as a cheating tool can be constrained by higher-order taxonomies. Unfortunately, the constraints to higher-order learning and skill development also undermine potential applications of ChatGPT for enhancing learning. There are several potential applications of ChatGPT for teaching nuclear medicine students.</p>","PeriodicalId":16548,"journal":{"name":"Journal of nuclear medicine technology","volume":"51 3","pages":"247-254"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of nuclear medicine technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.123.265844","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Academic integrity has been challenged by artificial intelligence algorithms in teaching institutions, including those providing nuclear medicine training. The GPT 3.5-powered ChatGPT chatbot released in late November 2022 has emerged as an immediate threat to academic and scientific writing. Methods: Both examinations and written assignments for nuclear medicine courses were tested using ChatGPT. Included was a mix of core theory subjects offered in the second and third years of the nuclear medicine science course. Long-answer-style questions (8 subjects) and calculation-style questions (2 subjects) were included for examinations. ChatGPT was also used to produce responses to authentic writing tasks (6 subjects). ChatGPT responses were evaluated by Turnitin plagiarism-detection software for similarity and artificial intelligence scores, scored against standardized rubrics, and compared with the mean performance of student cohorts. Results: ChatGPT powered by GPT 3.5 performed poorly in the 2 calculation examinations (overall, 31.7% compared with 67.3% for students), with particularly poor performance in complex-style questions. ChatGPT failed each of 6 written tasks (overall, 38.9% compared with 67.2% for students), with worsening performance corresponding to increasing writing and research expectations in the third year. In the 8 examinations, ChatGPT performed better than students for general or early subjects but poorly for advanced and specific subjects (overall, 51% compared with 57.4% for students). Conclusion: Although ChatGPT poses a risk to academic integrity, its usefulness as a cheating tool can be constrained by higher-order taxonomies. Unfortunately, the constraints to higher-order learning and skill development also undermine potential applications of ChatGPT for enhancing learning. There are several potential applications of ChatGPT for teaching nuclear medicine students.

核医学教育中的 ChatGPT。
教学机构(包括提供核医学培训的机构)中的人工智能算法对学术诚信提出了挑战。2022 年 11 月底发布的由 GPT 3.5 驱动的 ChatGPT 聊天机器人已成为学术和科学写作的直接威胁。方法:使用 ChatGPT 测试了核医学课程的考试和书面作业。其中包括核医学科学课程第二年和第三年的核心理论科目。考试包括长答题(8 个科目)和计算题(2 个科目)。ChatGPT 还被用于制作真实写作任务的回复(6 个科目)。通过 Turnitin 抄袭检测软件对 ChatGPT 作答的相似度和人工智能评分进行评估,根据标准化评分标准进行评分,并与同组学生的平均成绩进行比较。结果由 GPT 3.5 支持的 ChatGPT 在两次计算考试中表现不佳(总成绩为 31.7%,而学生成绩为 67.3%),尤其是在复杂题型中表现不佳。ChatGPT 在 6 项书面任务中均不及格(总体不及格率为 38.9%,而学生不及格率为 67.2%),随着第三学年对写作和研究的要求不断提高,其表现也越来越差。在 8 次考试中,ChatGPT 在一般科目或早期科目中的表现优于学生,但在高级科目和特殊科目中的表现较差(总体而言,51%,而学生为 57.4%)。结论:虽然 ChatGPT 对学术诚信构成风险,但其作为作弊工具的实用性会受到高阶分类标准的限制。不幸的是,对高阶学习和技能发展的限制也削弱了 ChatGPT 在促进学习方面的潜在应用。ChatGPT 在核医学学生教学方面有几种潜在的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of nuclear medicine technology
Journal of nuclear medicine technology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
15.40%
发文量
57
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信