{"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.