To the Editor

Abstract

We appreciate La, Rattanapitoon, Aeksanti, and their colleagues for their thoughtful response to our article.1 We value their careful reading and the constructive way they have expanded our discussion. Their observation that ChatGPT-4 excels in factual recall but struggles with complex reasoning aligns with our findings, and it is reassuring to see similar results emerging from other specialties. This consistency suggests a broader pattern that warrants further investigation. Dual-response workflows: Our evaluators frequently preferred a combined human-AI response, and we recognize the potential of structured “AI draft + expert validation” models. Evidence traceability: The absence of references in ChatGPT's answers was a limitation we identified. Retrieval-augmented methods could enhance transparency and assist trainees in critically assessing sources. AI as a scaffold for reasoning: We also believe that using LLMs as Socratic tutors, prompting learners to explain or critique, may be as valuable as expecting them to provide “the right answer.” We share their view that prospective studies are necessary to formally test these ideas, ensuring robust educational outcomes and careful safeguards against automation bias. We are grateful for their collegial commentary. Like them, we perceive AI not as a replacement for educators but as a potential partner, best integrated into transparent and supervised learning environments. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. 1 The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Ähnliche Arbeiten