Evaluating the application of ChatGPT in China's residency training education: An exploratory study.

IF 3.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Medical Teacher Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-12 DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2024.2377808
Luxiang Shang, Rui Li, Mingyue Xue, Qilong Guo, Yinglong Hou
{"title":"Evaluating the application of ChatGPT in China's residency training education: An exploratory study.","authors":"Luxiang Shang, Rui Li, Mingyue Xue, Qilong Guo, Yinglong Hou","doi":"10.1080/0142159X.2024.2377808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of information generated by ChatGPT for residency education in China.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We designed a three-step survey to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT in China's residency training education including residency final examination questions, patient cases, and resident satisfaction scores. First, 204 questions from the residency final exam were input into ChatGPT's interface to obtain the percentage of correct answers. Next, ChatGPT was asked to generate 20 clinical cases, which were subsequently evaluated by three instructors using a pre-designed Likert scale with 5 points. The quality of the cases was assessed based on criteria including clarity, relevance, logicality, credibility, and comprehensiveness. Finally, interaction sessions between 31 third-year residents and ChatGPT were conducted. Residents' perceptions of ChatGPT's feedback were assessed using a Likert scale, focusing on aspects such as ease of use, accuracy and completeness of responses, and its effectiveness in enhancing understanding of medical knowledge.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results showed ChatGPT-3.5 correctly answered 45.1% of exam questions. In the virtual patient cases, ChatGPT received mean ratings of 4.57 ± 0.50, 4.68 ± 0.47, 4.77 ± 0.46, 4.60 ± 0.53, and 3.95 ± 0.59 points for clarity, relevance, logicality, credibility, and comprehensiveness from clinical instructors, respectively. Among training residents, ChatGPT scored 4.48 ± 0.70, 4.00 ± 0.82 and 4.61 ± 0.50 points for ease of use, accuracy and completeness, and usefulness, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings demonstrate ChatGPT's immense potential for personalized Chinese medical education.</p>","PeriodicalId":18643,"journal":{"name":"Medical Teacher","volume":" ","pages":"858-864"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2377808","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of information generated by ChatGPT for residency education in China.

Methods: We designed a three-step survey to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT in China's residency training education including residency final examination questions, patient cases, and resident satisfaction scores. First, 204 questions from the residency final exam were input into ChatGPT's interface to obtain the percentage of correct answers. Next, ChatGPT was asked to generate 20 clinical cases, which were subsequently evaluated by three instructors using a pre-designed Likert scale with 5 points. The quality of the cases was assessed based on criteria including clarity, relevance, logicality, credibility, and comprehensiveness. Finally, interaction sessions between 31 third-year residents and ChatGPT were conducted. Residents' perceptions of ChatGPT's feedback were assessed using a Likert scale, focusing on aspects such as ease of use, accuracy and completeness of responses, and its effectiveness in enhancing understanding of medical knowledge.

Results: Our results showed ChatGPT-3.5 correctly answered 45.1% of exam questions. In the virtual patient cases, ChatGPT received mean ratings of 4.57 ± 0.50, 4.68 ± 0.47, 4.77 ± 0.46, 4.60 ± 0.53, and 3.95 ± 0.59 points for clarity, relevance, logicality, credibility, and comprehensiveness from clinical instructors, respectively. Among training residents, ChatGPT scored 4.48 ± 0.70, 4.00 ± 0.82 and 4.61 ± 0.50 points for ease of use, accuracy and completeness, and usefulness, respectively.

Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate ChatGPT's immense potential for personalized Chinese medical education.

评估 ChatGPT 在中国住院医师培训教育中的应用:一项探索性研究。
研究目的本研究旨在评估 ChatGPT 生成的信息在中国住院医师培训中的实用性:我们设计了一个三步调查来评估 ChatGPT 在中国住院医师培训教育中的表现,包括住院医师期末考试试题、患者病例和住院医师满意度评分。首先,将 204 道住院医师期末考试题目输入 ChatGPT 的界面,以获得正确答案的百分比。接着,ChatGPT 被要求生成 20 个临床病例,随后由三位导师使用预先设计好的 5 分李克特量表对这些病例进行评估。案例质量的评估标准包括清晰度、相关性、逻辑性、可信度和全面性。最后,31 名三年级住院医师与 ChatGPT 进行了互动交流。使用李克特量表评估了住院医师对 ChatGPT 反馈的看法,重点是易用性、回答的准确性和完整性,以及其在增强对医学知识理解方面的有效性:结果显示,ChatGPT-3.5 正确回答了 45.1% 的考题。在虚拟病人病例中,ChatGPT 的清晰度、相关性、逻辑性、可信度和全面性分别获得临床教师 4.57 ± 0.50 分、4.68 ± 0.47 分、4.77 ± 0.46 分、4.60 ± 0.53 分和 3.95 ± 0.59 分的平均评分。在培训住院医师中,ChatGPT 的易用性、准确性和完整性以及实用性分别获得了 4.48 ± 0.70 分、4.00 ± 0.82 分和 4.61 ± 0.50 分:我们的研究结果证明了 ChatGPT 在个性化中医教育方面的巨大潜力。
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
Medical Teacher
Medical Teacher 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.50%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Teacher provides accounts of new teaching methods, guidance on structuring courses and assessing achievement, and serves as a forum for communication between medical teachers and those involved in general education. In particular, the journal recognizes the problems teachers have in keeping up-to-date with the developments in educational methods that lead to more effective teaching and learning at a time when the content of the curriculum—from medical procedures to policy changes in health care provision—is also changing. The journal features reports of innovation and research in medical education, case studies, survey articles, practical guidelines, reviews of current literature and book reviews. All articles are peer reviewed.
×
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