The conversational AI "ChatGPT" outperforms medical students on a physiology university examination.

IF 1.7 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Advances in Physiology Education Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-11 DOI:10.1152/advan.00181.2023
Christophe O Soulage, Fabien Van Coppenolle, Fitsum Guebre-Egziabher
{"title":"The conversational AI \"ChatGPT\" outperforms medical students on a physiology university examination.","authors":"Christophe O Soulage, Fabien Van Coppenolle, Fitsum Guebre-Egziabher","doi":"10.1152/advan.00181.2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Artificial intelligence (AI) has gained massive interest with the public release of the conversational AI \"ChatGPT,\" but it also has become a matter of concern for academia as it can easily be misused. We performed a quantitative evaluation of the performance of ChatGPT on a medical physiology university examination. Forty-one answers were obtained with ChatGPT and compared to the results of 24 students. The results of ChatGPT were significantly better than those of the students; the median (IQR) score was 75% (66-84%) for the AI compared to 56% (43-65%) for students (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The exam success rate was 100% for ChatGPT, whereas 29% (<i>n</i> = 7) of students failed. ChatGPT could promote plagiarism and intellectual laziness among students and could represent a new and easy way to cheat, especially when evaluations are performed online. Considering that these powerful AI tools are now freely available, scholars should take great care to construct assessments that really evaluate student reflection skills and prevent AI-assisted cheating.<b>NEW & NOTEWORTHY</b> The release of the conversational artificial intelligence (AI) ChatGPT has become a matter of concern for academia as it can easily be misused by students for cheating purposes. We performed a quantitative evaluation of the performance of ChatGPT on a medical physiology university examination and observed that ChatGPT outperforms medical students obtaining significantly better grades. Scholars should therefore take great care to construct assessments crafted to really evaluate the student reflection skills and prevent AI-assisted cheating.</p>","PeriodicalId":50852,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Physiology Education","volume":" ","pages":"677-684"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Physiology Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00181.2023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has gained massive interest with the public release of the conversational AI "ChatGPT," but it also has become a matter of concern for academia as it can easily be misused. We performed a quantitative evaluation of the performance of ChatGPT on a medical physiology university examination. Forty-one answers were obtained with ChatGPT and compared to the results of 24 students. The results of ChatGPT were significantly better than those of the students; the median (IQR) score was 75% (66-84%) for the AI compared to 56% (43-65%) for students (P < 0.001). The exam success rate was 100% for ChatGPT, whereas 29% (n = 7) of students failed. ChatGPT could promote plagiarism and intellectual laziness among students and could represent a new and easy way to cheat, especially when evaluations are performed online. Considering that these powerful AI tools are now freely available, scholars should take great care to construct assessments that really evaluate student reflection skills and prevent AI-assisted cheating.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The release of the conversational artificial intelligence (AI) ChatGPT has become a matter of concern for academia as it can easily be misused by students for cheating purposes. We performed a quantitative evaluation of the performance of ChatGPT on a medical physiology university examination and observed that ChatGPT outperforms medical students obtaining significantly better grades. Scholars should therefore take great care to construct assessments crafted to really evaluate the student reflection skills and prevent AI-assisted cheating.

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
对话式人工智能 "ChatGPT "在大学生理学考试中的成绩优于医学生。
随着对话式人工智能 "ChatGPT "的公开发布,人工智能(AI)受到了广泛关注,但它也成为学术界关注的问题,因为它很容易被滥用。我们对 ChatGPT 在大学医学生理学考试中的表现进行了量化评估。通过 ChatGPT 获得了 41 份答案,并与 24 名学生的成绩进行了比较。ChatGPT 的成绩明显优于学生的成绩;人工智能的中位数(IQR)为 75 (66-84) %,而学生的中位数(IQR)为 56 (43-65) %(p
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
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
19.00%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Physiology Education promotes and disseminates educational scholarship in order to enhance teaching and learning of physiology, neuroscience and pathophysiology. The journal publishes peer-reviewed descriptions of innovations that improve teaching in the classroom and laboratory, essays on education, and review articles based on our current understanding of physiological mechanisms. Submissions that evaluate new technologies for teaching and research, and educational pedagogy, are especially welcome. The audience for the journal includes educators at all levels: K–12, undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs.
期刊最新文献
Assembling a physical model helps students grasp human somatosensory pathways. 11th Annual Michigan Physiological Society Meeting: June 24-25, 2024. Open and cautious toward the application of generative AI in physiology education: embracing the new era. The upside to depression: undergraduates benefit from an instructor revealing depression in a large-enrollment physiology course. Accuracy and reliability of large language models in assessing learning outcomes achievement across cognitive domains.
×
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