人工智能聊天机器人的认知领域评估:ChatGPT与双子座解剖教育理解的比较研究

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Medical Science Educator Pub Date : 2025-02-15 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1007/s40670-025-02303-0
Arthi Ganapathy, Parul Kaushal
{"title":"人工智能聊天机器人的认知领域评估:ChatGPT与双子座解剖教育理解的比较研究","authors":"Arthi Ganapathy, Parul Kaushal","doi":"10.1007/s40670-025-02303-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The integration of AI chatbots into education has gained traction, particularly in medical fields such as anatomy. This study aims to evaluate and compare the responses of ChatGPT 4o mini and Gemini across different cognitive domains of anatomy education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the responses of these two AI chatbots to a set of anatomy questions selected from the Manual on Competency-Based Undergraduate Curriculum. Questions were categorized into knowledge, comprehension and application levels of cognitive domain. Responses were scored against an answer key prepared by anatomy experts. Relevant comparative statistical analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall performance of ChatGPT 4o mini (76.15%) was significantly superior to Gemini (72.84%). In application-level questions, ChatGPT 4o mini outperformed Gemini. Conversely, Gemini scored higher in comprehension-level questions (76.88% vs. 73.66%). Both chatbots exhibited factual inaccuracies and limitations in contextually accurate responses, particularly in application-level questions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ChatGPT 4o mini and Gemini demonstrate potential as educational tools in anatomy, with strengths and limitations varying by cognitive domain. While AI chatbots can supplement traditional learning methods, they require ongoing refinement and validation. To ensure the responsible integration of AI into medical education, close attention must be devoted to faculty and student training, setting up relevant IT environment and ethical issues. Future research should focus on expanding question pools, incorporating user feedback and comparing with traditional educational approaches to enhance their effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":37113,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Educator","volume":"35 3","pages":"1295-1304"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12228882/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive Domain Assessment of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: A Comparative Study Between ChatGPT and Gemini's Understanding of Anatomy Education.\",\"authors\":\"Arthi Ganapathy, Parul Kaushal\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40670-025-02303-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The integration of AI chatbots into education has gained traction, particularly in medical fields such as anatomy. This study aims to evaluate and compare the responses of ChatGPT 4o mini and Gemini across different cognitive domains of anatomy education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the responses of these two AI chatbots to a set of anatomy questions selected from the Manual on Competency-Based Undergraduate Curriculum. Questions were categorized into knowledge, comprehension and application levels of cognitive domain. Responses were scored against an answer key prepared by anatomy experts. Relevant comparative statistical analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall performance of ChatGPT 4o mini (76.15%) was significantly superior to Gemini (72.84%). In application-level questions, ChatGPT 4o mini outperformed Gemini. Conversely, Gemini scored higher in comprehension-level questions (76.88% vs. 73.66%). Both chatbots exhibited factual inaccuracies and limitations in contextually accurate responses, particularly in application-level questions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ChatGPT 4o mini and Gemini demonstrate potential as educational tools in anatomy, with strengths and limitations varying by cognitive domain. While AI chatbots can supplement traditional learning methods, they require ongoing refinement and validation. To ensure the responsible integration of AI into medical education, close attention must be devoted to faculty and student training, setting up relevant IT environment and ethical issues. Future research should focus on expanding question pools, incorporating user feedback and comparing with traditional educational approaches to enhance their effectiveness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37113,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Science Educator\",\"volume\":\"35 3\",\"pages\":\"1295-1304\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12228882/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Science Educator\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-025-02303-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Science Educator","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-025-02303-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:人工智能聊天机器人与教育的整合已经获得了牵引力,特别是在解剖学等医学领域。本研究旨在评估和比较chatgpt40mini和Gemini在解剖学教育不同认知领域的反应。方法:进行了一项横断面研究,以评估这两个人工智能聊天机器人对《能力基础本科课程手册》中一系列解剖学问题的反应。将问题分为认知领域的知识水平、理解水平和应用水平。回答是根据解剖学专家准备的答案进行评分的。进行相关的比较统计分析。结果:ChatGPT 40mini的综合性能(76.15%)明显优于Gemini(72.84%)。在应用级问题中,ChatGPT 40mini的表现优于Gemini。相反,双子座在理解水平的问题上得分更高(76.88%比73.66%)。这两个聊天机器人在上下文准确的回答中都表现出事实的不准确性和局限性,特别是在应用级问题中。结论:ChatGPT 40mini和Gemini都显示出解剖学教育工具的潜力,其优势和局限性因认知领域而异。虽然人工智能聊天机器人可以补充传统的学习方法,但它们需要不断的改进和验证。为了确保人工智能负责任地融入医学教育,必须密切关注教师和学生的培训,建立相关的IT环境和道德问题。未来的研究应侧重于扩大问题池,纳入用户反馈,并与传统的教育方法进行比较,以提高其有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cognitive Domain Assessment of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: A Comparative Study Between ChatGPT and Gemini's Understanding of Anatomy Education.

Purpose: The integration of AI chatbots into education has gained traction, particularly in medical fields such as anatomy. This study aims to evaluate and compare the responses of ChatGPT 4o mini and Gemini across different cognitive domains of anatomy education.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the responses of these two AI chatbots to a set of anatomy questions selected from the Manual on Competency-Based Undergraduate Curriculum. Questions were categorized into knowledge, comprehension and application levels of cognitive domain. Responses were scored against an answer key prepared by anatomy experts. Relevant comparative statistical analysis was performed.

Results: The overall performance of ChatGPT 4o mini (76.15%) was significantly superior to Gemini (72.84%). In application-level questions, ChatGPT 4o mini outperformed Gemini. Conversely, Gemini scored higher in comprehension-level questions (76.88% vs. 73.66%). Both chatbots exhibited factual inaccuracies and limitations in contextually accurate responses, particularly in application-level questions.

Conclusion: Both ChatGPT 4o mini and Gemini demonstrate potential as educational tools in anatomy, with strengths and limitations varying by cognitive domain. While AI chatbots can supplement traditional learning methods, they require ongoing refinement and validation. To ensure the responsible integration of AI into medical education, close attention must be devoted to faculty and student training, setting up relevant IT environment and ethical issues. Future research should focus on expanding question pools, incorporating user feedback and comparing with traditional educational approaches to enhance their effectiveness.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Science Educator
Medical Science Educator Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.80%
发文量
202
期刊介绍: Medical Science Educator is the successor of the journal JIAMSE. It is the peer-reviewed publication of the International Association of Medical Science Educators (IAMSE). The Journal offers all who teach in healthcare the most current information to succeed in their task by publishing scholarly activities, opinions, and resources in medical science education. Published articles focus on teaching the sciences fundamental to modern medicine and health, and include basic science education, clinical teaching, and the use of modern education technologies. The Journal provides the readership a better understanding of teaching and learning techniques in order to advance medical science education.
×
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