Medical Education

Artificial Intelligence will not replace academics, but academics who use AI will replace those who do not.
-We should discuss boundaries/ethical issues!@NatRevUrol @OncoAlert @Roei_Golan7 @AkhilMuthigi @ranjithramamd @VincentRK @VPrasadMDMPH #ChatGPT https://t.co/neAtxrRXI8 pic.twitter.com/gOpzbdg1mO

— Yüksel Ürün (@DrYukselUrun) February 26, 2023

Perspective | ChatGPT-assisted diagnosis: is the future suddenly here?

Perspective | Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: ethical challenges for medical publishing

ChatGPT: Will It Transform the World of Health Care? – UCSF Department of Medicine

ChatGPT and the future of medical writing (ChatGPT itself wrote this paper)

ChatGPT: five priorities for research – Nature

The path forward for ChatGPT in academia – Lumo’s Newsletter

Nonhuman “Authors” and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge – JAMA

ChatGPT is fun, but not an author – Science

Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use – Nature

ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove – Nature

Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists

Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models

14 Feb, 2023 | 11:00h | UTC

Summary: The researchers evaluated the performance of ChatGPT, a large language-based AI, on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). The USMLE is a set of three standardized tests required for medical licensure in the US. The results showed that ChatGPT performed at or near the passing threshold (60%) on all three exams without specialized training or reinforcement. The AI also demonstrated a high level of concordance and insight in its explanations, suggesting that it may have potential to assist with medical education and potentially, clinical decision-making in the future. This marks a notable milestone in AI maturation and increased confidence in its trust and explainability.

(By ChatGPT, reviewed and edited)

Article: Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models – PLOS Digital Health

News Release: ChatGPT can (almost) pass the US Medical Licensing Exam – PLOS

Commentaries:

Expert reaction to study on ChatGPT almost passing the US Medical Licensing Exam – Science Media Centre

New and surprising evidence that ChatGPT can perform several intricate tasks relevant to handling complex medical and clinical information – News Medical

Commentary from one of the authors on Twitter (thread – click for more)

our work showing that ChatGPT passed the US Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) is published @PLOSDigiHealth!

there's tons of chatter about LLMs in healthcare.

AI is not going to replace doctors anytime soon, but here are the key takeaways from this work:

👉 https://t.co/OQs2Tlfwjx pic.twitter.com/v3UWjScLth

— Morgan Cheatham (@morgancheatham) February 13, 2023

Perspective | ChatGPT-assisted diagnosis: is the future suddenly here?

14 Feb, 2023 | 10:59h | UTC

Summary: The article discusses the potential of ChatGPT, a new AI chatbot, to revolutionize medical diagnosis. It compares ChatGPT’s performance with that of symptom checkers and physicians, finding that it performs better than symptom checkers and is approaching the accuracy of physicians. The article highlights the limitations of the study, including the small sample size and sensitivity of results to the way information is presented. It also acknowledges potential challenges with the use of AI in medical diagnosis, including the need for more rigorous testing, the issue of feeding patient information into an algorithm, and the possibility of AI algorithms being biased. Despite these challenges, the article suggests that the future of computer-assisted diagnosis is here and the healthcare system will need to address these challenges.

(By ChatGPT, reviewed and edited)

Source: ChatGPT-assisted diagnosis: Is the future suddenly here? – STAT

Opinion | The “evidence pyramid” should be dismantled, brick by ill-conceived brick

14 Feb, 2023 | 10:57h | UTC

Summary: The text criticizes the use of the so-called “evidence pyramid” in medicine, which suggests that systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) are the highest level of evidence in medicine. The author argues that SRMAs are not evidence themselves, but a lens through which actual evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies is viewed. They depend on the quality of the review process and the evidence appraised, which are often low quality and small studies with various methodologies. The author suggests that a better framework would place RCTs at the top of the pyramid and relegates SRMAs to the role of a lens. The author also points out that good observational studies may be better than bad RCTs, and that each paper should be read and judged on its individual merits, not by its strata on a pyramid.

(By ChatGPT, reviewed and edited)

Source: The “evidence pyramid” should be dismantled, brick by ill-conceived brick – Sensible Medicine

Perspective | Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: ethical challenges for medical publishing

14 Feb, 2023 | 10:58h | UTC

Summary: The article discusses the ethical challenges posed by the use of ChatGPT, an AI chatbot, in medical publishing. The authors note that the impact of generative AI on medical publishing is currently unknown, but it could have substantial ethical implications, including copyright, attribution, plagiarism, and authorship issues. The authors argue that there is a growing need for robust AI author guidelines in scholarly publishing, and that the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers has produced a white paper on AI ethics. They also raise concerns about the potential for ChatGPT to widen existing disparities in knowledge dissemination and scholarly publishing, as well as the potential for the chatbot to produce misleading or inaccurate content. The authors call on The Lancet Digital Health and the Lancet family to initiate discussions around the implications of AI-generated content within scholarly publishing and to create comprehensive guidance.

(By ChatGPT, reviewed and edited)

Article: Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: ethical challenges for medical publishing – The Lancet Digital Health

ChatGPT and the future of medical writing (ChatGPT itself wrote this paper)

6 Feb, 2023 | 13:31h | UTC

ChatGPT and the Future of Medical Writing – Radiology

Editorials:

ChatGPT Is Shaping the Future of Medical Writing but Still Requires Human Judgment – Radiology

ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models Are Double-edged Swords – Radiology

Commentaries:

AI program ChatGPT now has a published article in Radiology—is it any good? – Health Imaging

Peer-Reviewed Journal Publishes Paper Written Almost Entirely by ChatGPT— It required close editing, human co-author said – MedPage Today (free registration required)

ChatGPT: five priorities for research – Nature

The path forward for ChatGPT in academia – Lumo’s Newsletter

Nonhuman “Authors” and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge – JAMA

ChatGPT is fun, but not an author – Science

Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use – Nature

ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove – Nature

Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists

ChatGPT: five priorities for research

6 Feb, 2023 | 13:30h | UTC

ChatGPT: five priorities for research – Nature

ChatGPT and the Future of Medical Writing – Radiology

Nonhuman “Authors” and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge – JAMA

The path forward for ChatGPT in academia – Lumo’s Newsletter

ChatGPT is fun, but not an author – Science

Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use – Nature

ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove – Nature

Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists

Editorial | Nonhuman “authors” and implications for the integrity of scientific publication and medical knowledge

1 Feb, 2023 | 13:38h | UTC

Nonhuman “Authors” and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge – JAMA

ChatGPT is fun, but not an author – Science

Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use – Nature

ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove – Nature

Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists

Editorial | ChatGPT is fun, but not an author

27 Jan, 2023 | 12:20h | UTC

ChatGPT is fun, but not an author – Science

Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use – Nature

ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove – Nature

Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists

18 Jan, 2023 | 14:29h | UTC

Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists – Nature

Original Study (preprint): Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers – bioRxiv

Cross-sectional study | Students attending online courses were at increased risk of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2 Dec, 2022 | 14:16h | UTC

Association Between College Course Delivery Model and Rates of Psychological Distress During the COVID-19 Pandemic – JAMA Network Open

Commentary: Undergraduates Taking Online-Only Courses During Pandemic Reported Greater Psychological Distress – Psychiatric News Alert

Commentary on Twitter

💡More data that hybrid >> online only 📰 @JAMANetworkOpen: https://t.co/5vMrrmeGIw

Cross-sectional study of 59k college students (61% online only, 35% mixed online/in-person) found online only ⬆️ psychological distress (b = 0.76 [99% CI, 0.64-0.88]; P < .001). @dsouzl @roecsg

— Erin Gillespie, MD (@ErinGillespieMD) November 30, 2022

Top Things to Know: Physician Wellness in Academic CV Medicine – American Heart Association

Commentaries:

Fostering a Culture of Wellness: How To Care For Ourselves So We Can Care For Our Patients – American Heart Association

Physician Wellness in Academic Cardiovascular Medicine: Key Points – American College of Cardiology

Evaluation of open access websites for anesthesia education.

23 Aug, 2022 | 12:59h | UTC

Evaluation of Open Access Websites for Anesthesia Education – Anesthesia & Analgesia (free for a limited period)

ChatGPT’s performance on radiology board exam: strengths and shortcomings

‘Too greedy’: mass walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees

Cohort Study | Impact of work schedules of senior resident physicians on patient and resident physician safety

ChatGPT et al? Not so fast, say journal editors

Opinion | AI-generated medical advice—GPT and beyond

Opinion | ChatGPT will change Medicine

Guidelines | The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of creating open educational resources

Perspective | Artificial intelligence in medicine & ChatGPT: de-tether the physician

ChatGPT has many uses. Experts explore what this means for healthcare and medical research

Perspective | Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing?

Artificial intelligence in academic writing: a paradigm-shifting technological advance

Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models

Perspective | ChatGPT-assisted diagnosis: is the future suddenly here?

Opinion | The “evidence pyramid” should be dismantled, brick by ill-conceived brick

Perspective | Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: ethical challenges for medical publishing

ChatGPT and the future of medical writing (ChatGPT itself wrote this paper)

ChatGPT: five priorities for research

Editorial | Nonhuman “authors” and implications for the integrity of scientific publication and medical knowledge

Editorial | ChatGPT is fun, but not an author

Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists

Cross-sectional study | Students attending online courses were at increased risk of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinical questions in primary care: where to find the answers – A cross-sectional study.

Perspective | Teaching a deeper understanding of the medical literature.

AHA Scientific Statement | Physician wellness in academic cardiovascular medicine.

Evaluation of open access websites for anesthesia education.

Stay Updated in Your Specialty