ChatGPT in Nuclear Medicine Education.

IF 1 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of nuclear medicine technology Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-11 DOI:10.2967/jnmt.123.265844
Geoffrey Currie, Kym Barry
{"title":"ChatGPT in Nuclear Medicine Education.","authors":"Geoffrey Currie, Kym Barry","doi":"10.2967/jnmt.123.265844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Academic integrity has been challenged by artificial intelligence algorithms in teaching institutions, including those providing nuclear medicine training. The GPT 3.5-powered ChatGPT chatbot released in late November 2022 has emerged as an immediate threat to academic and scientific writing. <b>Methods:</b> Both examinations and written assignments for nuclear medicine courses were tested using ChatGPT. Included was a mix of core theory subjects offered in the second and third years of the nuclear medicine science course. Long-answer-style questions (8 subjects) and calculation-style questions (2 subjects) were included for examinations. ChatGPT was also used to produce responses to authentic writing tasks (6 subjects). ChatGPT responses were evaluated by Turnitin plagiarism-detection software for similarity and artificial intelligence scores, scored against standardized rubrics, and compared with the mean performance of student cohorts. <b>Results:</b> ChatGPT powered by GPT 3.5 performed poorly in the 2 calculation examinations (overall, 31.7% compared with 67.3% for students), with particularly poor performance in complex-style questions. ChatGPT failed each of 6 written tasks (overall, 38.9% compared with 67.2% for students), with worsening performance corresponding to increasing writing and research expectations in the third year. In the 8 examinations, ChatGPT performed better than students for general or early subjects but poorly for advanced and specific subjects (overall, 51% compared with 57.4% for students). <b>Conclusion:</b> Although ChatGPT poses a risk to academic integrity, its usefulness as a cheating tool can be constrained by higher-order taxonomies. Unfortunately, the constraints to higher-order learning and skill development also undermine potential applications of ChatGPT for enhancing learning. There are several potential applications of ChatGPT for teaching nuclear medicine students.</p>","PeriodicalId":16548,"journal":{"name":"Journal of nuclear medicine technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of nuclear medicine technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.123.265844","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Academic integrity has been challenged by artificial intelligence algorithms in teaching institutions, including those providing nuclear medicine training. The GPT 3.5-powered ChatGPT chatbot released in late November 2022 has emerged as an immediate threat to academic and scientific writing. Methods: Both examinations and written assignments for nuclear medicine courses were tested using ChatGPT. Included was a mix of core theory subjects offered in the second and third years of the nuclear medicine science course. Long-answer-style questions (8 subjects) and calculation-style questions (2 subjects) were included for examinations. ChatGPT was also used to produce responses to authentic writing tasks (6 subjects). ChatGPT responses were evaluated by Turnitin plagiarism-detection software for similarity and artificial intelligence scores, scored against standardized rubrics, and compared with the mean performance of student cohorts. Results: ChatGPT powered by GPT 3.5 performed poorly in the 2 calculation examinations (overall, 31.7% compared with 67.3% for students), with particularly poor performance in complex-style questions. ChatGPT failed each of 6 written tasks (overall, 38.9% compared with 67.2% for students), with worsening performance corresponding to increasing writing and research expectations in the third year. In the 8 examinations, ChatGPT performed better than students for general or early subjects but poorly for advanced and specific subjects (overall, 51% compared with 57.4% for students). Conclusion: Although ChatGPT poses a risk to academic integrity, its usefulness as a cheating tool can be constrained by higher-order taxonomies. Unfortunately, the constraints to higher-order learning and skill development also undermine potential applications of ChatGPT for enhancing learning. There are several potential applications of ChatGPT for teaching nuclear medicine students.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
核医学教育中的 ChatGPT。
教学机构(包括提供核医学培训的机构)中的人工智能算法对学术诚信提出了挑战。2022 年 11 月底发布的由 GPT 3.5 驱动的 ChatGPT 聊天机器人已成为学术和科学写作的直接威胁。方法:使用 ChatGPT 测试了核医学课程的考试和书面作业。其中包括核医学科学课程第二年和第三年的核心理论科目。考试包括长答题(8 个科目)和计算题(2 个科目)。ChatGPT 还被用于制作真实写作任务的回复(6 个科目)。通过 Turnitin 抄袭检测软件对 ChatGPT 作答的相似度和人工智能评分进行评估,根据标准化评分标准进行评分,并与同组学生的平均成绩进行比较。结果由 GPT 3.5 支持的 ChatGPT 在两次计算考试中表现不佳(总成绩为 31.7%,而学生成绩为 67.3%),尤其是在复杂题型中表现不佳。ChatGPT 在 6 项书面任务中均不及格(总体不及格率为 38.9%,而学生不及格率为 67.2%),随着第三学年对写作和研究的要求不断提高,其表现也越来越差。在 8 次考试中,ChatGPT 在一般科目或早期科目中的表现优于学生,但在高级科目和特殊科目中的表现较差(总体而言,51%,而学生为 57.4%)。结论:虽然 ChatGPT 对学术诚信构成风险,但其作为作弊工具的实用性会受到高阶分类标准的限制。不幸的是,对高阶学习和技能发展的限制也削弱了 ChatGPT 在促进学习方面的潜在应用。ChatGPT 在核医学学生教学方面有几种潜在的应用。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of nuclear medicine technology
Journal of nuclear medicine technology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
15.40%
发文量
57
期刊最新文献
A Rare Case of Orbital Metastasis from Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: Challenges of 18F-FDG PET/CT and the Search for Consensus on Imaging. Brain Imaging: Amyloid-β PET. Gender and Ethnicity Bias of Text-to-Image Generative Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging, Part 1: Preliminary Evaluation. Gender and Ethnicity Bias of Text-to-Image Generative Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging, Part 2: Analysis of DALL-E 3. Comment Regarding "Vapocoolant Analgesia for Breast Lymphoscintigraphy: A Prospective Clinical Trial".
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1