Can ChatGPT generate surgical multiple-choice questions comparable to those written by a surgeon?

Q3 Medicine Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings Pub Date : 2024-10-22 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1080/08998280.2024.2418752
Yavuz Selim Kıyak, Ali Kağan Coşkun, Şahin Kaymak, Özlem Coşkun, Işıl İrem Budakoğlu
{"title":"Can ChatGPT generate surgical multiple-choice questions comparable to those written by a surgeon?","authors":"Yavuz Selim Kıyak, Ali Kağan Coşkun, Şahin Kaymak, Özlem Coşkun, Işıl İrem Budakoğlu","doi":"10.1080/08998280.2024.2418752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to determine whether surgical multiple-choice questions generated by ChatGPT are comparable to those written by human experts (surgeons).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was conducted at a medical school and involved 112 fourth-year medical students. Based on five learning objectives in general surgery (colorectal, gastric, trauma, breast, thyroid), ChatGPT and surgeons generated five multiple-choice questions. No change was made to the ChatGPT-generated questions. The statistical properties of these questions, including correlations between two group of questions and correlations with total scores (item discrimination) in a general surgery clerkship exam, were reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a significant positive correlation between the ChatGPT-generated and human-written questions for one learning objective (colorectal). More importantly, only one ChatGPT-generated question (colorectal) achieved an acceptable discrimination level, while other four failed to achieve it. In contrast, human-written questions showed acceptable discrimination levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While ChatGPT has the potential to generate multiple-choice questions comparable to human-written ones in specific contexts, the variability across surgical topics points to the need for human oversight and review before their use in exams. It is important to integrate artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT with human expertise to enhance efficiency and quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":8828,"journal":{"name":"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings","volume":"38 1","pages":"48-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11657069/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2024.2418752","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to determine whether surgical multiple-choice questions generated by ChatGPT are comparable to those written by human experts (surgeons).

Methods: The study was conducted at a medical school and involved 112 fourth-year medical students. Based on five learning objectives in general surgery (colorectal, gastric, trauma, breast, thyroid), ChatGPT and surgeons generated five multiple-choice questions. No change was made to the ChatGPT-generated questions. The statistical properties of these questions, including correlations between two group of questions and correlations with total scores (item discrimination) in a general surgery clerkship exam, were reported.

Results: There was a significant positive correlation between the ChatGPT-generated and human-written questions for one learning objective (colorectal). More importantly, only one ChatGPT-generated question (colorectal) achieved an acceptable discrimination level, while other four failed to achieve it. In contrast, human-written questions showed acceptable discrimination levels.

Conclusion: While ChatGPT has the potential to generate multiple-choice questions comparable to human-written ones in specific contexts, the variability across surgical topics points to the need for human oversight and review before their use in exams. It is important to integrate artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT with human expertise to enhance efficiency and quality.

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
ChatGPT能生成与外科医生所写的相当的外科选择题吗?
背景:本研究旨在确定ChatGPT生成的外科选择题是否与人类专家(外科医生)编写的选择题具有可比性。方法:本研究在一所医学院进行,涉及112名四年级医学生。基于普通外科的五个学习目标(结直肠、胃、创伤、乳房、甲状腺),ChatGPT和外科医生制作了五个选择题。chatgpt生成的问题没有改变。本文报道了普外科见习考试中这些问题的统计性质,包括两组问题之间的相关性以及与总分(项目歧视)的相关性。结果:在一个学习目标(结肠直肠)中,chatgpt生成的问题与人工编写的问题之间存在显著的正相关。更重要的是,只有一个chatgpt生成的问题(结肠直肠)达到了可接受的歧视水平,而其他四个问题都没有达到。相比之下,人工编写的问题显示出可接受的歧视程度。结论:虽然ChatGPT有潜力在特定情况下生成与人工写作相当的选择题,但手术主题的可变性表明,在将其用于考试之前,需要人工监督和审查。重要的是将ChatGPT等人工智能工具与人类专业知识相结合,以提高效率和质量。
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
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
245
期刊最新文献
Herpes zoster ophthalmicus temporally after COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review of uncontrolled case reports and case series. Prevalence of Kaposi sarcoma in the United States: SEER cross-sectional study. Institution of a formal multidisciplinary heart team for high-risk coronary revascularization. Barriers to guideline implementation. Avocations.
×
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