Evaluating the Use of Artificial Intelligence as a Study Tool for Preclinical Medical School Exams.

IF 2 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Peyton G Sakelaris, Kaitlyn V Novotny, Miriam S Borvick, Gemma G Lagasca, Edward G Simanton
{"title":"Evaluating the Use of Artificial Intelligence as a Study Tool for Preclinical Medical School Exams.","authors":"Peyton G Sakelaris, Kaitlyn V Novotny, Miriam S Borvick, Gemma G Lagasca, Edward G Simanton","doi":"10.1177/23821205251320150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this 2024 study was to determine if there is an association between the usage of artificial intelligence (AI) to study and exam scores of medical students in the preclinical phase of their schooling.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We created and distributed a survey via an unbiased third-party to students in the class of 2027 at the Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine at UNLV to evaluate students AI use to study for their preclinical system-based exams. Students were categorized into two groups, those that use AI to study and those who do not. Two-sample t-tests were run to compare the mean exam scores of both groups on six different organ system exams as well as the cumulative final exam score for each group. The group that did use AI was further asked about which AI tools they use and how exactly they use these tools to study for preclinical examinations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results of the study showed that there is no statistically significant difference in exam scores between students who use AI for study purposes and students who do not. It was also found that most AI users studied with ChatGPT. The most common way users studied was by using AI to simplify and clarify topics they did not understand.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the results of this study, we concluded that usage of AI programs for students for medical examinations did not yield a positive or negative effect on students' organ system-based exam scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":45121,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development","volume":"12 ","pages":"23821205251320150"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11851803/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205251320150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this 2024 study was to determine if there is an association between the usage of artificial intelligence (AI) to study and exam scores of medical students in the preclinical phase of their schooling.

Methods: We created and distributed a survey via an unbiased third-party to students in the class of 2027 at the Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine at UNLV to evaluate students AI use to study for their preclinical system-based exams. Students were categorized into two groups, those that use AI to study and those who do not. Two-sample t-tests were run to compare the mean exam scores of both groups on six different organ system exams as well as the cumulative final exam score for each group. The group that did use AI was further asked about which AI tools they use and how exactly they use these tools to study for preclinical examinations.

Results: The results of the study showed that there is no statistically significant difference in exam scores between students who use AI for study purposes and students who do not. It was also found that most AI users studied with ChatGPT. The most common way users studied was by using AI to simplify and clarify topics they did not understand.

Conclusions: Based on the results of this study, we concluded that usage of AI programs for students for medical examinations did not yield a positive or negative effect on students' organ system-based exam scores.

评估使用人工智能作为临床前医学院考试的学习工具。
背景:这项2024年研究的目的是确定在临床前阶段使用人工智能(AI)学习与医学生考试成绩之间是否存在关联。方法:我们通过无偏见的第三方机构对UNLV柯克·科克里安医学院2027届学生进行了一项调查,以评估学生在临床前系统考试中使用人工智能的情况。学生们被分为两组,一组使用人工智能学习,另一组不使用。进行双样本t检验,比较两组在六种不同器官系统检查中的平均考试分数以及每组的累积期末考试分数。使用人工智能的小组进一步被问及他们使用了哪些人工智能工具,以及他们如何准确地使用这些工具来进行临床前检查。结果:研究结果显示,使用人工智能学习的学生和不使用人工智能学习的学生在考试成绩上没有统计学上的显著差异。研究还发现,大多数人工智能用户使用ChatGPT学习。用户最常见的学习方式是使用人工智能来简化和澄清他们不理解的话题。结论:根据本研究的结果,我们得出结论,使用AI程序为学生进行医学检查不会对学生的器官系统考试成绩产生积极或消极的影响。
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 Medical Education and Curricular Development
Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信