ChatGPT versus expert feedback on clinical reasoning questions and their effect on learning: a randomized controlled trial

被引:2
|
作者
Cicek, Feray Ekin [1 ]
Ulker, Muserref [1 ]
Ozer, Menekse [1 ]
Kiyak, Yavuz Selim [2 ]
机构
[1] Gazi Univ, Fac Med, TR-06500 Ankara, Turkiye
[2] Gazi Univ, Fac Med, Dept Med Educ & Informat, TR-06500 Ankara, Turkiye
关键词
ChatGPT; large language models; artificial intelligence; feedback; clinical reasoning;
D O I
10.1093/postmj/qgae170
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of ChatGPT-generated feedback compared to expert-written feedback in improving clinical reasoning skills among first-year medical students. Methods This is a randomized controlled trial conducted at a single medical school and involved 129 first-year medical students who were randomly assigned to two groups. Both groups completed three formative tests with feedback on urinary tract infections (UTIs; uncomplicated, complicated, pyelonephritis) over five consecutive days as a spaced repetition, receiving either expert-written feedback (control, n = 65) or ChatGPT-generated feedback (experiment, n = 64). Clinical reasoning skills were assessed using Key-Features Questions (KFQs) immediately after the intervention and 10 days later. Students' critical approach to artificial intelligence (AI) was also measured before and after disclosing the AI involvement in feedback generation. Results There was no significant difference between the mean scores of the control (immediate: 78.5 +/- 20.6 delayed: 78.0 +/- 21.2) and experiment (immediate: 74.7 +/- 15.1, delayed: 76.0 +/- 14.5) groups in overall performance on Key-Features Questions (out of 120 points) immediately (P = .26) or after 10 days (P = .57), with small effect sizes. However, the control group outperformed the ChatGPT group in complicated urinary tract infection cases (P < .001). The experiment group showed a significantly higher critical approach to AI after disclosing, with medium-large effect sizes. Conclusions ChatGPT-generated feedback can be an effective alternative to expert feedback in improving clinical reasoning skills in medical students, particularly in resource-constrained settings with limited expert availability. However, AI-generated feedback may lack the nuance needed for more complex cases, emphasizing the need for expert review. Additionally, exposure to the drawbacks in AI-generated feedback can enhance students' critical approach towards AI-generated educational content. Key Messages What is already known on this topic Text-based virtual patients with feedback have shown effectiveness in improving clinical reasoning, and recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, have proposed new ways to provide feedback in medical education. However, the effect of AI-generated feedback has not been compared to expert-written feedback. What this study adds While the effect of ChatGPT feedback was generally on par with the effect of expert feedback, the study identified limitations in AI-generated explanations for more nuanced diagnosis and treatment. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy The findings suggest that ChatGPT can be utilized as a supplementary tool especially in resource-limited settings where expert feedback is not readily available. Its integration could streamline feedback and improve educational efficiency, but a hybrid approach is recommended to ensure accuracy, with educators reviewing AI-generated feedback.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] ChatGPT's Ability to Assist with Clinical Documentation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Baker, Hayden P.
    Dwyer, Emma
    Kalidoss, Senthooran
    Hynes, Kelly
    Wolf, Jennifer
    Strelzow, Jason A.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2024, 32 (03) : 123 - 129
  • [2] Effect of individualized feedback on learning curves in EGD and colonoscopy: a cluster randomized controlled trial
    Han, Samuel
    Obuch, Joshua C.
    Keswani, Rajesh N.
    Hall, Matt
    Patel, Swati G.
    Menard-Katcher, Paul
    Simon, Violette
    Ezekwe, Eze
    Aagaard, Eva
    Ahmad, Asyia
    Alghamdi, Saad
    Austin, Kerri
    Brimhall, Bryan
    Broy, Charles
    Carlin, Linda
    Cooley, Matthew
    Di Palma, Jack A.
    Duloy, Anna M.
    Early, Dayna S.
    Ellert, Swan
    Gaumnitz, Eric A.
    Goyal, Jatinder
    Kathpalia, Priya
    Day, Lukejohn
    El-Nachef, Najwa
    Kerman, David
    Lee, Robert H.
    Lunsford, Tisha
    Mittal, Mohit
    Morigeau, Kirsten
    Pietrak, Stanley
    Piper, Michael
    Shah, Anand S.
    Shapiro, Alan B.
    Shergill, Amandeep
    Sonnier, William
    Sorrell, Cari
    Vignesh, Shivakumar
    Wani, Sachin
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2020, 91 (04) : 882 - +
  • [3] Effectiveness of SNAPPS for improving clinical reasoning in postgraduates: randomized controlled trial
    Jain, Vishakha
    Rao, Siddharth
    Jinadani, Mariya
    BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2019, 19 (1)
  • [4] Effectiveness of SNAPPS for improving clinical reasoning in postgraduates: randomized controlled trial
    Vishakha Jain
    Siddharth Rao
    Mariya Jinadani
    BMC Medical Education, 19
  • [5] Comparison of self versus expert-assisted feedback for cricothyroidotomy training: a randomized trial
    Hasan Aldinc
    Cem Gun
    Serpil Yaylaci
    Cigdem Ozkaya Senuren
    Feray Guven
    Melike Sahiner
    Kamil Kayayurt
    Suha Turkmen
    BMC Medical Education, 22
  • [6] Comparison of self versus expert-assisted feedback for cricothyroidotomy training: a randomized trial
    Aldinc, Hasan
    Gun, Cem
    Yaylaci, Serpil
    Senuren, Cigdem Ozkaya
    Guven, Feray
    Sahiner, Melike
    Kayayurt, Kamil
    Turkmen, Suha
    BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [7] ChatGPT to generate clinical vignettes for teaching and multiple-choice questions for assessment: A randomized controlled experiment
    Coskun, Oezlem
    Kiyak, Yavuz Selim
    Budakoglu, Isil Irem
    MEDICAL TEACHER, 2025, 47 (02) : 268 - 274
  • [8] Virtual patients versus standardized patients for improving clinical reasoning skills in ophthalmology residents. A randomized controlled trial
    Malik, Tayyaba Gul
    Mahboob, Usman
    Khan, Rehan Ahmed
    Alam, Rabail
    BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [9] Using Expert Models to Provide Feedback on Clinical Reasoning Skills
    Naismith, Laura
    Lajoie, Susanne P.
    INTELLIGENT TUTORING SYSTEMS, PART II, 2010, 6095 : 242 - 244
  • [10] A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Impact of Expert Feedback on the Acquisition of Technical Skills in Vascular Surgery
    Drudi, Laura
    Vassiliou, Melina
    Feldman, Liane S.
    Gill, Heather L.
    Steinmetz, Oren K.
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2016, 64 (05) : 1543 - 1543