IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dbk/datame/v3y2024ip.433id1056294dm2024433.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the efficacy of ChatGPT versus medical students in clinical case resolution

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Bustillos
  • Fernanda Marizande
  • Andrea Cevallos
  • Diana Bustillos
  • Cristina Arteaga
  • Fabricio Vásquez de la Bandera

Abstract

Introduction: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical education has gained relevance, and tools like ChatGPT offer support in solving clinical cases. This study compared the average performance of ChatGPT against medical students to evaluate its potential as an educational tool. Methods: A cross-sectional quantitative study was conducted with 110 sixth-semester medical students from the Technical University of Ambato. Four clinical cases were designed, covering cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and neurology scenarios. Multiple-choice questions were used to assess both the participants and ChatGPT. Data were analyzed using the Student's t-test for independent samples. Results: ChatGPT outperformed the students in all cases, with an average score of 8.25 compared to 7.35 for the students. A statistically significant difference was found between the two groups (p = 0.0293). Conclusions: ChatGPT demonstrated superior performance in solving clinical cases compared to medical students. However, limitations such as potential inaccuracies in information highlight the need for further studies and supervision when integrating AI into medical education.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:dbk:datame:v:3:y:2024:i::p:.433:id:1056294dm2024433
DOI: 10.56294/dm2024.433
as

Download full text from publisher

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a
for a similarly titled item that would be available.

More about this item

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dbk:datame:v:3:y:2024:i::p:.433:id:1056294dm2024433. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Javier Gonzalez-Argote (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://dm.ageditor.ar/ .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.