Can medical students use artificial intelligence to learn transfusion? Evaluating ChatGPT responses to the American Society of Hematology medical student transfusion learning objectives.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEMATOLOGY
Vox Sanguinis Pub Date : 2025-07-13 DOI:10.1111/vox.70070
Eileen McBride, Elaine Leung, Jason Ford
{"title":"Can medical students use artificial intelligence to learn transfusion? Evaluating ChatGPT responses to the American Society of Hematology medical student transfusion learning objectives.","authors":"Eileen McBride, Elaine Leung, Jason Ford","doi":"10.1111/vox.70070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Chat generative pretrained transformer (ChatGPT) is a large language model that is already in wide use among medical students as a means of learning. Many papers have evaluated ChatGPT as a presenter of medical knowledge for the general public and as a test-taking engine. For students who rely on ChatGPT to learn transfusion medicine, it is important to understand the limitations of the application.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Transfusion content from the American Society of Hematology 'medical student learning objectives' was edited into questions for the ChatGPT interface. The answers generated by ChatGPT were then marked by three experienced transfusion medicine physicians.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT scored on average 2.27 ± 0.21 on a 4-point scale. Two-thirds of its answers scored A, B or C, representing excellent, good or satisfactory achievement, respectively. One-third of ChatGPT's answers were assigned a failing grade. Simple questions of basic transfusion science performed the best; more complex questions as well as questions where clinical practice has evolved substantially over the last several years performed the worst. Some answers were assessed to be unsafe in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>As a resource for medical students learning transfusion medicine, ChatGPT has significant limitations. A considerable proportion of its answers to transfusion questions are unreliable, inaccurate and even unsafe. These incorrect answers are presented with the same authoritative tone as its correct answers, and an inexperienced learner would be challenged to differentiate between true and untrue responses. At the present time, it is not recommended for medical students to use ChatGPT to learn transfusion medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":23631,"journal":{"name":"Vox Sanguinis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vox Sanguinis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/vox.70070","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Chat generative pretrained transformer (ChatGPT) is a large language model that is already in wide use among medical students as a means of learning. Many papers have evaluated ChatGPT as a presenter of medical knowledge for the general public and as a test-taking engine. For students who rely on ChatGPT to learn transfusion medicine, it is important to understand the limitations of the application.

Materials and methods: Transfusion content from the American Society of Hematology 'medical student learning objectives' was edited into questions for the ChatGPT interface. The answers generated by ChatGPT were then marked by three experienced transfusion medicine physicians.

Results: ChatGPT scored on average 2.27 ± 0.21 on a 4-point scale. Two-thirds of its answers scored A, B or C, representing excellent, good or satisfactory achievement, respectively. One-third of ChatGPT's answers were assigned a failing grade. Simple questions of basic transfusion science performed the best; more complex questions as well as questions where clinical practice has evolved substantially over the last several years performed the worst. Some answers were assessed to be unsafe in clinical practice.

Conclusion: As a resource for medical students learning transfusion medicine, ChatGPT has significant limitations. A considerable proportion of its answers to transfusion questions are unreliable, inaccurate and even unsafe. These incorrect answers are presented with the same authoritative tone as its correct answers, and an inexperienced learner would be challenged to differentiate between true and untrue responses. At the present time, it is not recommended for medical students to use ChatGPT to learn transfusion medicine.

医学生可以用人工智能学习输血吗?评估ChatGPT对美国血液学学会医学院学生输血学习目标的反应。
背景和目标:聊天生成预训练转换器(ChatGPT)是一种大型语言模型,已经在医学生中广泛使用,作为一种学习手段。许多论文都将ChatGPT评价为向公众展示医学知识和考试引擎。对于依赖ChatGPT学习输血医学的学生来说,了解应用的局限性是很重要的。材料和方法:来自美国血液学学会“医学生学习目标”的输血内容被编辑成ChatGPT界面的问题。ChatGPT生成的答案随后由三名经验丰富的输血医学医生进行标记。结果:ChatGPT平均得分为2.27±0.21分(4分制)。三分之二的答案得分为A、B或C,分别代表优秀、良好和满意的成绩。ChatGPT三分之一的答案被评为不及格。基础输血科学的简单问题表现最好;更复杂的问题以及临床实践在过去几年中发生了实质性变化的问题表现最差。一些答案在临床实践中被评估为不安全。结论:ChatGPT作为医学生学习输血医学的资源存在明显的局限性。它对输血问题的回答中有相当一部分是不可靠、不准确甚至不安全的。这些不正确的答案和正确的答案一样都是权威的语气,没有经验的学习者很难区分正确和不正确的回答。目前不建议医学生使用ChatGPT学习输血医学。
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
Vox Sanguinis
Vox Sanguinis 医学-血液学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
11.10%
发文量
156
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Vox Sanguinis reports on important, novel developments in transfusion medicine. Original papers, reviews and international fora are published on all aspects of blood transfusion and tissue transplantation, comprising five main sections: 1) Transfusion - Transmitted Disease and its Prevention: Identification and epidemiology of infectious agents transmissible by blood; Bacterial contamination of blood components; Donor recruitment and selection methods; Pathogen inactivation. 2) Blood Component Collection and Production: Blood collection methods and devices (including apheresis); Plasma fractionation techniques and plasma derivatives; Preparation of labile blood components; Inventory management; Hematopoietic progenitor cell collection and storage; Collection and storage of tissues; Quality management and good manufacturing practice; Automation and information technology. 3) Transfusion Medicine and New Therapies: Transfusion thresholds and audits; Haemovigilance; Clinical trials regarding appropriate haemotherapy; Non-infectious adverse affects of transfusion; Therapeutic apheresis; Support of transplant patients; Gene therapy and immunotherapy. 4) Immunohaematology and Immunogenetics: Autoimmunity in haematology; Alloimmunity of blood; Pre-transfusion testing; Immunodiagnostics; Immunobiology; Complement in immunohaematology; Blood typing reagents; Genetic markers of blood cells and serum proteins: polymorphisms and function; Genetic markers and disease; Parentage testing and forensic immunohaematology. 5) Cellular Therapy: Cell-based therapies; Stem cell sources; Stem cell processing and storage; Stem cell products; Stem cell plasticity; Regenerative medicine with cells; Cellular immunotherapy; Molecular therapy; Gene therapy.
×
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