ChatG-PD? Comparing large language model artificial intelligence and faculty rankings of the competitiveness of standardized letters of evaluation.

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
AEM Education and Training Pub Date : 2024-12-09 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1002/aet2.11052
Benjamin Schnapp, Morgan Sehdev, Caitlin Schrepel, Sharon Bord, Alexis Pelletier-Bui, Al'ai Alvarez, Nicole M Dubosh, Yoon Soo Park, Eric Shappell
{"title":"ChatG-PD? Comparing large language model artificial intelligence and faculty rankings of the competitiveness of standardized letters of evaluation.","authors":"Benjamin Schnapp, Morgan Sehdev, Caitlin Schrepel, Sharon Bord, Alexis Pelletier-Bui, Al'ai Alvarez, Nicole M Dubosh, Yoon Soo Park, Eric Shappell","doi":"10.1002/aet2.11052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While faculty have previously been shown to have high levels of agreement about the competitiveness of emergency medicine (EM) standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs), reviewing SLOEs remains a highly time-intensive process for faculty. Artificial intelligence large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for effectively analyzing large volumes of data across a variety of contexts, but their ability to interpret SLOEs is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective was to evaluate the ability of LLMs to rate EM SLOEs on competitiveness compared to faculty consensus and previously developed algorithms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty mock SLOE letters were drafted and analyzed seven times by a data-focused LLM with instructions to rank them based on desirability for residency. The LLM was also asked to use its own criteria to decide which characteristics are most important for residency and revise its ranking of the SLOEs. LLM-generated rank lists were compared with faculty consensus rankings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a high degree of correlation (<i>r =</i> 0.96) between the rank list initially generated by LLM consensus and the rank list generated by trained faculty. The correlation between the revised list generated by the LLM and the faculty consensus was lower (<i>r =</i> 0.86).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The LLM generated rankings showed strong correlation with expert faculty consensus rankings with minimal input of faculty time and effort.</p>","PeriodicalId":37032,"journal":{"name":"AEM Education and Training","volume":"8 6","pages":"e11052"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11628426/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AEM Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.11052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: While faculty have previously been shown to have high levels of agreement about the competitiveness of emergency medicine (EM) standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs), reviewing SLOEs remains a highly time-intensive process for faculty. Artificial intelligence large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for effectively analyzing large volumes of data across a variety of contexts, but their ability to interpret SLOEs is unknown.

Objective: The objective was to evaluate the ability of LLMs to rate EM SLOEs on competitiveness compared to faculty consensus and previously developed algorithms.

Methods: Fifty mock SLOE letters were drafted and analyzed seven times by a data-focused LLM with instructions to rank them based on desirability for residency. The LLM was also asked to use its own criteria to decide which characteristics are most important for residency and revise its ranking of the SLOEs. LLM-generated rank lists were compared with faculty consensus rankings.

Results: There was a high degree of correlation (r = 0.96) between the rank list initially generated by LLM consensus and the rank list generated by trained faculty. The correlation between the revised list generated by the LLM and the faculty consensus was lower (r = 0.86).

Conclusions: The LLM generated rankings showed strong correlation with expert faculty consensus rankings with minimal input of faculty time and effort.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AEM Education and Training
AEM Education and Training Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
22.20%
发文量
89
×
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