Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Learning the Randleman Criteria in Refractive Surgery: Utilizing ChatGPT-3.5 Versus Internet Search Engine
2
Zitationen
6
Autoren
2024
Jahr
Abstract
Introduction Large language models such as OpenAI's (San Francisco, CA) ChatGPT-3.5 hold immense potential to augment self-directed learning in medicine, but concerns have risen regarding its accuracy in specialized fields. This study compares ChatGPT-3.5 with an internet search engine in their ability to define the Randleman criteria and its five parameters within a self-directed learning environment. Methods Twenty-three medical students gathered information on the Randleman criteria. Each student was allocated 10 minutes to interact with ChatGPT-3.5, followed by 10 minutes to search the internet independently. Each ChatGPT-3.5 conversation, student summary, and internet reference were subsequently analyzed for accuracy, efficiency, and reliability. Results ChatGPT-3.5 provided the correct definition for 26.1% of students (6/23, 95% CI: 12.3% to 46.8%), while an independent internet search resulted in sources containing the correct definition for 100% of students (23/23, 95% CI: 87.5% to 100%, p = 0.0001). ChatGPT-3.5 incorrectly identified the Randleman criteria as a corneal ectasia staging system for 17.4% of students (4/23), fabricated a "Randleman syndrome" for 4.3% of students (1/23), and gave no definition for 52.2% of students (12/23). When a definition was given (47.8%, 11/23), a median of two of the five correct parameters was provided along with a median of two additional falsified parameters. Conclusion Internet search engine outperformed ChatGPT-3.5 in providing accurate and reliable information on the Randleman criteria. ChatGPT-3.5 gave false information, required excessive prompting, and propagated misunderstandings. Learners should exercise discernment when using ChatGPT-3.5. Future initiatives should evaluate the implementation of prompt engineering and updated large-language models.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
2021 · 85.193 Zit.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
2009 · 82.801 Zit.
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
1977 · 76.929 Zit.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
2009 · 62.792 Zit.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
2003 · 61.509 Zit.
Autoren
Institutionen
- Texas Tech University(US)
- The University of Texas at El Paso(US)
- The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio(US)
- University of Phoenix(US)
- University of Utah(US)
- Minnesota Lions Eye Bank(US)
- Eye Institute of Utah(US)
- Hoopes Vision(US)
- Phoenix College(US)
- Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center(US)