核医学教育中的GPT-4:它的表现优于GPT-3.5吗?

IF 1 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of nuclear medicine technology Pub Date : 2023-12-05 DOI:10.2967/jnmt.123.266485
Geoffrey M Currie
{"title":"核医学教育中的GPT-4:它的表现优于GPT-3.5吗?","authors":"Geoffrey M Currie","doi":"10.2967/jnmt.123.266485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The emergence of ChatGPT has challenged academic integrity in teaching institutions, including those providing nuclear medicine training. Although previous evaluations of ChatGPT have suggested a limited scope for academic writing, the March 2023 release of generative pretrained transformer (GPT)-4 promises enhanced capabilities that require evaluation. <b>Methods:</b> Examinations (final and calculation) and written assignments for nuclear medicine subjects were tested using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 responses were evaluated by Turnitin software for artificial intelligence scores, marked against standardized rubrics, and compared with the mean performance of student cohorts. <b>Results:</b> ChatGPT powered by GPT-3.5 performed poorly in calculation examinations (31.4%), compared with GPT-4 (59.1%). GPT-3.5 failed each of 3 written tasks (39.9%), whereas GPT-4 passed each task (56.3%). <b>Conclusion:</b> Although GPT-3.5 poses a minimal risk to academic integrity, its usefulness as a cheating tool can be significantly enhanced by GPT-4 but remains prone to hallucination and fabrication.</p>","PeriodicalId":16548,"journal":{"name":"Journal of nuclear medicine technology","volume":" ","pages":"314-317"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"GPT-4 in Nuclear Medicine Education: Does It Outperform GPT-3.5?\",\"authors\":\"Geoffrey M Currie\",\"doi\":\"10.2967/jnmt.123.266485\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The emergence of ChatGPT has challenged academic integrity in teaching institutions, including those providing nuclear medicine training. Although previous evaluations of ChatGPT have suggested a limited scope for academic writing, the March 2023 release of generative pretrained transformer (GPT)-4 promises enhanced capabilities that require evaluation. <b>Methods:</b> Examinations (final and calculation) and written assignments for nuclear medicine subjects were tested using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 responses were evaluated by Turnitin software for artificial intelligence scores, marked against standardized rubrics, and compared with the mean performance of student cohorts. <b>Results:</b> ChatGPT powered by GPT-3.5 performed poorly in calculation examinations (31.4%), compared with GPT-4 (59.1%). GPT-3.5 failed each of 3 written tasks (39.9%), whereas GPT-4 passed each task (56.3%). <b>Conclusion:</b> Although GPT-3.5 poses a minimal risk to academic integrity, its usefulness as a cheating tool can be significantly enhanced by GPT-4 but remains prone to hallucination and fabrication.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16548,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of nuclear medicine technology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"314-317\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-05\",\"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.123.266485\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of nuclear medicine technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.123.266485","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

ChatGPT的出现挑战了教学机构的学术诚信,包括那些提供核医学培训的机构。尽管之前对ChatGPT的评估表明学术写作的范围有限,但2023年3月发布的生成预训练转换器(GPT)-4有望增强需要评估的能力。方法:使用GPT-3.5和GPT-4测试核医学科目的考试(期末和计算)和书面作业。通过Turnitin软件对GPT-3.5和GPT-4的反应进行人工智能评分评估,对照标准化评分标准进行评分,并与学生群体的平均表现进行比较。结果:与GPT-4(59.1%)相比,由GPT-3.5支持的ChatGPT在计算考试中表现不佳(31.4%)。GPT-3.5在3项书面任务中均未通过(39.9%),而GPT-4通过了每项任务(56.3%)。结论:尽管GPT-3.5对学术完整性的风险最小,GPT-4可以显著增强其作为作弊工具的有用性,但仍然容易产生幻觉和捏造。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
GPT-4 in Nuclear Medicine Education: Does It Outperform GPT-3.5?

The emergence of ChatGPT has challenged academic integrity in teaching institutions, including those providing nuclear medicine training. Although previous evaluations of ChatGPT have suggested a limited scope for academic writing, the March 2023 release of generative pretrained transformer (GPT)-4 promises enhanced capabilities that require evaluation. Methods: Examinations (final and calculation) and written assignments for nuclear medicine subjects were tested using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 responses were evaluated by Turnitin software for artificial intelligence scores, marked against standardized rubrics, and compared with the mean performance of student cohorts. Results: ChatGPT powered by GPT-3.5 performed poorly in calculation examinations (31.4%), compared with GPT-4 (59.1%). GPT-3.5 failed each of 3 written tasks (39.9%), whereas GPT-4 passed each task (56.3%). Conclusion: Although GPT-3.5 poses a minimal risk to academic integrity, its usefulness as a cheating tool can be significantly enhanced by GPT-4 but remains prone to hallucination and fabrication.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Amyloid Imaging Update: How the Amyloid Landscape Is Changing in Light of the Recent Food and Drug Administration Approval of Antiamyloid Therapeutics. Brain Imaging-PET: Tau. Decoding the Jargon: Understanding the Nomenclature of Clinical Education. Delivery Methods of Radiopharmaceuticals: Exploring Global Strategies to Minimize Occupational Radiation Exposure. SPECT Views for Cardiac Amyloidosis Imaging.
×
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