Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
ChatGPT as a teaching tool: Preparing pathology residents for board examination with AI-generated digestive system pathology tests
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
ChatGPT as a teaching tool: Preparing pathology residents for board examination with AI-generated digestive system pathology tests
Do you wish to request the book?
ChatGPT as a teaching tool: Preparing pathology residents for board examination with AI-generated digestive system pathology tests
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
ChatGPT as a teaching tool: Preparing pathology residents for board examination with AI-generated digestive system pathology tests
2024
Overview
Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the effectiveness of ChatGPT 4 in generating multiple-choice questions (MCQs) with explanations for pathology board examinations, specifically for digestive system pathology.
Methods
The customized ChatGPT 4 model was developed for MCQ and explanation generation. Expert pathologists evaluated content accuracy and relevance. These MCQs were then administered to pathology residents, followed by an analysis focusing on question difficulty, accuracy, item discrimination, and internal consistency.
Results
The customized ChatGPT 4 generated 80 MCQs covering various gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary topics. While the MCQs demonstrated moderate to high agreement in evaluation parameters such as content accuracy, clinical relevance, and overall quality, there were issues in cognitive level and distractor quality. The explanations were generally acceptable. Involving 9 residents with a median experience of 1 year, the average score was 57.4 (71.8%). Pairwise comparisons revealed a significant difference in performance between each year group (P < .01). The test analysis showed moderate difficulty, effective item discrimination (index = 0.15), and good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.74).
Conclusions
ChatGPT 4 demonstrated significant potential as a supplementary educational tool in medical education, especially in generating MCQs with explanations similar to those seen in board examinations. While artificial intelligence–generated content was of high quality, it necessitated refinement and expert review.
Publisher
Oxford University Press
