Transforming Medical Education: Leveraging Large Language Models to Enhance PBL - A Proof-of-Concept Study.

IF 1.7 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Advances in Physiology Education Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1152/advan.00209.2024
Shoukat Ali Arain, Shahid Akhtar Akhund, Muhammad Abrar Barakzai, Sultan Ayoub Meo
{"title":"Transforming Medical Education: Leveraging Large Language Models to Enhance PBL - A Proof-of-Concept Study.","authors":"Shoukat Ali Arain, Shahid Akhtar Akhund, Muhammad Abrar Barakzai, Sultan Ayoub Meo","doi":"10.1152/advan.00209.2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The alignment of learning materials with the learning objectives (LOs) is critical for successfully implementing the Problem-Based Learning (PBL) curriculum. This study investigated the capabilities of Gemini Advanced, a large language model (LLM), in creating clinical vignettes that align with LOs, and comprehensive tutor guides. This study used a faculty-written clinical vignette about diabetes mellitus for third-year medical students. We submitted the LOs and the associated clinical vignette and tutor guide to the LLM to evaluate their alignment and generate new versions. Four faculty members compared both versions using a structured questionnaire. The mean evaluation scores for original and LLM-generated versions are reported. The LLM identified new triggers for the clinical vignette to align it better with the LOs. Moreover, it restructured the tutor guide for better organization and flow and included thought-provoking questions. The medical information provided by the LLM was scientifically appropriate and accurate. LLM-generated clinical vignette scored higher (3.0 vs. 1.25) for the alignment with the LOs. However, the original version scored better for being educational-level appropriate (2.25 vs. 1.25) and adhering to PBL design (2.50 vs. 1.25). The LLM-generated tutor guide scored higher for better flow (3.0 vs. 1.25), comprehensive and relevant content (2.75 vs. 1.50) and thought-provoking questions (2.25 vs. 1.75). However, LLM-generated learning material lacked visual elements. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that Gemini could align and improve PBL learning materials. By leveraging the potential of LLMs while acknowledging their limitations, medical educators can create innovative and effective learning experiences for future physicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":50852,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Physiology Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","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.00209.2024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The alignment of learning materials with the learning objectives (LOs) is critical for successfully implementing the Problem-Based Learning (PBL) curriculum. This study investigated the capabilities of Gemini Advanced, a large language model (LLM), in creating clinical vignettes that align with LOs, and comprehensive tutor guides. This study used a faculty-written clinical vignette about diabetes mellitus for third-year medical students. We submitted the LOs and the associated clinical vignette and tutor guide to the LLM to evaluate their alignment and generate new versions. Four faculty members compared both versions using a structured questionnaire. The mean evaluation scores for original and LLM-generated versions are reported. The LLM identified new triggers for the clinical vignette to align it better with the LOs. Moreover, it restructured the tutor guide for better organization and flow and included thought-provoking questions. The medical information provided by the LLM was scientifically appropriate and accurate. LLM-generated clinical vignette scored higher (3.0 vs. 1.25) for the alignment with the LOs. However, the original version scored better for being educational-level appropriate (2.25 vs. 1.25) and adhering to PBL design (2.50 vs. 1.25). The LLM-generated tutor guide scored higher for better flow (3.0 vs. 1.25), comprehensive and relevant content (2.75 vs. 1.50) and thought-provoking questions (2.25 vs. 1.75). However, LLM-generated learning material lacked visual elements. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that Gemini could align and improve PBL learning materials. By leveraging the potential of LLMs while acknowledging their limitations, medical educators can create innovative and effective learning experiences for future physicians.

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
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
Educational strategies for teaching metabolic profiles across three endurance training zones. Teaching pathological physiology of sepsis using a high-fidelity simulator. Premed pressure: examining whether premed students experience more academic stress compared to non-premeds. Randle cycle in practice: a student exercise to teach glucose and fatty acid metabolism in fasted, fed, and exercised states. Metabolic scaling: exploring the relation between metabolic rate and body size.
×
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