Search

Large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, Google's Bard, and Anthropic's Claude, showcase remarkable natural language processing capabilities. Evaluating their proficiency in specialized domains such as neurophysiology is crucial in understanding their utility in research, education, and clinical applications. This study aims to assess and compare the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in answering neurophysiology questions in both English and Persian (Farsi) covering a range of topics and cognitive levels. Twenty questions covering four topics (general, sensory system, motor system, and integrative) and two cognitive levels (lower-order and higher-order) were posed to the LLMs. Physiologists scored the essay-style answers on a scale of 0–5 points. Statistical analysis compared the scores across different levels such as model, language, topic, and cognitive levels. Performing qualitative analysis identified reasoning gaps. In general, the models demonstrated good performance (mean score = 3.87/5), with no significant difference between language or cognitive levels. The performance was the strongest in the motor system (mean = 4.41) while the weakest was observed in integrative topics (mean = 3.35). Detailed qualitative analysis uncovered deficiencies in reasoning, discerning priorities, and knowledge integrating. This study offers valuable insights into LLMs' capabilities and limitations in the field of neurophysiology. The models demonstrate proficiency in general questions but face challenges in advanced reasoning and knowledge integration. Targeted training could address gaps in knowledge and causal reasoning. As LLMs evolve, rigorous domain-specific assessments will be crucial for evaluating advancements in their performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While there is data assessing the test performance of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, including the Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4.0 (GPT 4) chatbot (ChatGPT 4.0), there is scarce data on its diagnostic accuracy of clinical cases. We assessed the large language model (LLM), ChatGPT 4.0, on its ability to answer questions from the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 2, as well as its ability to generate a differential diagnosis based on corresponding clinical vignettes from published case reports. A total of 109 Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) practice questions were inputted into both ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0, asking ChatGPT to pick the correct answer. Compared to its previous version, ChatGPT 3.5, we found improved accuracy of ChatGPT 4.0 when answering these questions, from 47.7 to 87.2% (p = 0.035) respectively. Utilizing the topics tested on Step 2 CK questions, we additionally found 63 corresponding published case report vignettes and asked ChatGPT 4.0 to come up with its top three differential diagnosis. ChatGPT 4.0 accurately created a shortlist of differential diagnoses in 74.6% of the 63 case reports (74.6%). We analyzed ChatGPT 4.0's confidence in its diagnosis by asking it to rank its top three differentials from most to least likely. Out of the 47 correct diagnoses, 33 were the first (70.2%) on the differential diagnosis list, 11 were second (23.4%), and three were third (6.4%). Our study shows the continued iterative improvement in ChatGPT's ability to answer standardized USMLE questions accurately and provides insights into ChatGPT's clinical diagnostic accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health equity and accessing Spanish kidney transplant information continues being a substantial challenge facing the Hispanic community. This study evaluated ChatGPT's capabilities in translating 54 English kidney transplant frequently asked questions (FAQs) into Spanish using two versions of the AI model, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0. The FAQs included 19 from Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), 15 from National Health Service (NHS), and 20 from National Kidney Foundation (NKF). Two native Spanish-speaking nephrologists, both of whom are of Mexican heritage, scored the translations for linguistic accuracy and cultural sensitivity tailored to Hispanics using a 1–5 rubric. The inter-rater reliability of the evaluators, measured by Cohen's Kappa, was 0.85. Overall linguistic accuracy was 4.89 ± 0.31 for GPT-3.5 versus 4.94 ± 0.23 for GPT-4.0 (non-significant p = 0.23). Both versions scored 4.96 ± 0.19 in cultural sensitivity (p = 1.00). By source, GPT-3.5 linguistic accuracy was 4.84 ± 0.37 (OPTN), 4.93 ± 0.26 (NHS), 4.90 ± 0.31 (NKF). GPT-4.0 scored 4.95 ± 0.23 (OPTN), 4.93 ± 0.26 (NHS), 4.95 ± 0.22 (NKF). For cultural sensitivity, GPT-3.5 scored 4.95 ± 0.23 (OPTN), 4.93 ± 0.26 (NHS), 5.00 ± 0.00 (NKF), while GPT-4.0 scored 5.00 ± 0.00 (OPTN), 5.00 ± 0.00 (NHS), 4.90 ± 0.31 (NKF). These high linguistic and cultural sensitivity scores demonstrate Chat GPT effectively translated the English FAQs into Spanish across systems. The findings suggest Chat GPT's potential to promote health equity by improving Spanish access to essential kidney transplant information. Additional research should evaluate its medical translation capabilities across diverse contexts/languages. These English-to-Spanish translations may increase access to vital transplant information for underserved Spanish-speaking Hispanic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Free-text analysis using machine learning (ML)-based natural language processing (NLP) shows promise for diagnosing psychiatric conditions. Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) has demonstrated preliminary initial feasibility for this purpose; however, whether it can accurately assess mental illness remains to be determined. This study evaluates the effectiveness of ChatGPT and the text-embedding-ada-002 (ADA) model in detecting post-traumatic stress disorder following childbirth (CB-PTSD), a maternal postpartum mental illness affecting millions of women annually, with no standard screening protocol. Using a sample of 1295 women who gave birth in the last six months and were 18+ years old, recruited through hospital announcements, social media, and professional organizations, we explore ChatGPT's and ADA's potential to screen for CB-PTSD by analyzing maternal childbirth narratives. The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5; cutoff 31) was used to assess CB-PTSD. By developing an ML model that utilizes numerical vector representation of the ADA model, we identify CB-PTSD via narrative classification. Our model outperformed (F1 score: 0.81) ChatGPT and six previously published large text-embedding models trained on mental health or clinical domains data, suggesting that the ADA model can be harnessed to identify CB-PTSD. Our modeling approach could be generalized to assess other mental health disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to transform our lives and work through the content they generate, known as AI-Generated Content (AIGC). To harness this transformation, we need to understand the limitations of LLMs. Here, we investigate the bias of AIGC produced by seven representative LLMs, including ChatGPT and LLaMA. We collect news articles from The New York Times and Reuters, both known for their dedication to provide unbiased news. We then apply each examined LLM to generate news content with headlines of these news articles as prompts, and evaluate the gender and racial biases of the AIGC produced by the LLM by comparing the AIGC and the original news articles. We further analyze the gender bias of each LLM under biased prompts by adding gender-biased messages to prompts constructed from these news headlines. Our study reveals that the AIGC produced by each examined LLM demonstrates substantial gender and racial biases. Moreover, the AIGC generated by each LLM exhibits notable discrimination against females and individuals of the Black race. Among the LLMs, the AIGC generated by ChatGPT demonstrates the lowest level of bias, and ChatGPT is the sole model capable of declining content generation when provided with biased prompts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The GPT-4 large language model (LLM) and ChatGPT chatbot have emerged as accessible and capable tools for generating English-language text in a variety of formats. GPT-4 has previously performed well when applied to questions from multiple standardized examinations. However, further evaluation of trustworthiness and accuracy of GPT-4 responses across various knowledge domains is essential before its use as a reference resource. Here, we assess GPT-4 performance on nine graduate-level examinations in the biomedical sciences (seven blinded), finding that GPT-4 scores exceed the student average in seven of nine cases and exceed all student scores for four exams. GPT-4 performed very well on fill-in-the-blank, short-answer, and essay questions, and correctly answered several questions on figures sourced from published manuscripts. Conversely, GPT-4 performed poorly on questions with figures containing simulated data and those requiring a hand-drawn answer. Two GPT-4 answer-sets were flagged as plagiarism based on answer similarity and some model responses included detailed hallucinations. In addition to assessing GPT-4 performance, we discuss patterns and limitations in GPT-4 capabilities with the goal of informing design of future academic examinations in the chatbot era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to transform our lives and work through the content they generate, known as AI-Generated Content (AIGC). To harness this transformation, we need to understand the limitations of LLMs. Here, we investigate the bias of AIGC produced by seven representative LLMs, including ChatGPT and LLaMA. We collect news articles from The New York Times and Reuters, both known for their dedication to provide unbiased news. We then apply each examined LLM to generate news content with headlines of these news articles as prompts, and evaluate the gender and racial biases of the AIGC produced by the LLM by comparing the AIGC and the original news articles. We further analyze the gender bias of each LLM under biased prompts by adding gender-biased messages to prompts constructed from these news headlines. Our study reveals that the AIGC produced by each examined LLM demonstrates substantial gender and racial biases. Moreover, the AIGC generated by each LLM exhibits notable discrimination against females and individuals of the Black race. Among the LLMs, the AIGC generated by ChatGPT demonstrates the lowest level of bias, and ChatGPT is the sole model capable of declining content generation when provided with biased prompts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Matching the language or content of a message to the psychological profile of its recipient (known as "personalized persuasion") is widely considered to be one of the most effective messaging strategies. We demonstrate that the rapid advances in large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, could accelerate this influence by making personalized persuasion scalable. Across four studies (consisting of seven sub-studies; total N = 1788), we show that personalized messages crafted by ChatGPT exhibit significantly more influence than non-personalized messages. This was true across different domains of persuasion (e.g., marketing of consumer products, political appeals for climate action), psychological profiles (e.g., personality traits, political ideology, moral foundations), and when only providing the LLM with a single, short prompt naming or describing the targeted psychological dimension. Thus, our findings are among the first to demonstrate the potential for LLMs to automate, and thereby scale, the use of personalized persuasion in ways that enhance its effectiveness and efficiency. We discuss the implications for researchers, practitioners, and the general public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Matching the language or content of a message to the psychological profile of its recipient (known as "personalized persuasion") is widely considered to be one of the most effective messaging strategies. We demonstrate that the rapid advances in large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, could accelerate this influence by making personalized persuasion scalable. Across four studies (consisting of seven sub-studies; total N = 1788), we show that personalized messages crafted by ChatGPT exhibit significantly more influence than non-personalized messages. This was true across different domains of persuasion (e.g., marketing of consumer products, political appeals for climate action), psychological profiles (e.g., personality traits, political ideology, moral foundations), and when only providing the LLM with a single, short prompt naming or describing the targeted psychological dimension. Thus, our findings are among the first to demonstrate the potential for LLMs to automate, and thereby scale, the use of personalized persuasion in ways that enhance its effectiveness and efficiency. We discuss the implications for researchers, practitioners, and the general public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As AI systems proliferate, their greenhouse gas emissions are an increasingly important concern for human societies. In this article, we present a comparative analysis of the carbon emissions associated with AI systems (ChatGPT, BLOOM, DALL-E2, Midjourney) and human individuals performing equivalent writing and illustrating tasks. Our findings reveal that AI systems emit between 130 and 1500 times less CO2e per page of text generated compared to human writers, while AI illustration systems emit between 310 and 2900 times less CO2e per image than their human counterparts. Emissions analyses do not account for social impacts such as professional displacement, legality, and rebound effects. In addition, AI is not a substitute for all human tasks. Nevertheless, at present, the use of AI holds the potential to carry out several major activities at much lower emission levels than can humans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of publicly accessible artificial intelligence (AI) large language models such as ChatGPT has given rise to global conversations on the implications of AI capabilities. Emergent research on AI has challenged the assumption that creative potential is a uniquely human trait thus, there seems to be a disconnect between human perception versus what AI is objectively capable of creating. Here, we aimed to assess the creative potential of humans in comparison to AI. In the present study, human participants (N = 151) and GPT-4 provided responses for the Alternative Uses Task, Consequences Task, and Divergent Associations Task. We found that AI was robustly more creative along each divergent thinking measurement in comparison to the human counterparts. Specifically, when controlling for fluency of responses, AI was more original and elaborate. The present findings suggest that the current state of AI language models demonstrate higher creative potential than human respondents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a global health challenge, and patient education plays a crucial role in its early detection and treatment. Despite progress in AI technology, as exemplified by transformer-like models such as ChatGPT, there remains a lack of in-depth understanding of their efficacy for medical purposes. We aimed to assess the proficiency of ChatGPT in the field of popular science, specifically in answering questions related to CRC diagnosis and treatment, using the book "Colorectal Cancer: Your Questions Answered" as a reference. In general, 131 valid questions from the book were manually input into ChatGPT. Responses were evaluated by clinical physicians in the relevant fields based on comprehensiveness and accuracy of information, and scores were standardized for comparison. Not surprisingly, ChatGPT showed high reproducibility in its responses, with high uniformity in comprehensiveness, accuracy, and final scores. However, the mean scores of ChatGPT's responses were significantly lower than the benchmarks, indicating it has not reached an expert level of competence in CRC. While it could provide accurate information, it lacked in comprehensiveness. Notably, ChatGPT performed well in domains of radiation therapy, interventional therapy, stoma care, venous care, and pain control, almost rivaling the benchmarks, but fell short in basic information, surgery, and internal medicine domains. While ChatGPT demonstrated promise in specific domains, its general efficiency in providing CRC information falls short of expert standards, indicating the need for further advancements and improvements in AI technology for patient education in healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence models, like ChatGPT, have the potential to revolutionize higher education when implemented properly. This study aimed to investigate the factors influencing university students' attitudes and usage of ChatGPT in Arab countries. The survey instrument "TAME-ChatGPT" was administered to 2240 participants from Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan. Of those, 46.8% heard of ChatGPT, and 52.6% used it before the study. The results indicated that a positive attitude and usage of ChatGPT were determined by factors like ease of use, positive attitude towards technology, social influence, perceived usefulness, behavioral/cognitive influences, low perceived risks, and low anxiety. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated the adequacy of the "TAME-ChatGPT" constructs. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the attitude towards ChatGPT usage was significantly influenced by country of residence, age, university type, and recent academic performance. This study validated "TAME-ChatGPT" as a useful tool for assessing ChatGPT adoption among university students. The successful integration of ChatGPT in higher education relies on the perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, positive attitude towards technology, social influence, behavioral/cognitive elements, low anxiety, and minimal perceived risks. Policies for ChatGPT adoption in higher education should be tailored to individual contexts, considering the variations in student attitudes observed in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of large language models (LLM) with remarkable performance such as ChatGPT and GPT-4, has led to an unprecedented uptake in the population. One of their most promising and studied applications concerns education due to their ability to understand and generate human-like text, creating a multitude of opportunities for enhancing educational practices and outcomes. The objective of this study is twofold: to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT/GPT-4 in answering rheumatology questions from the access exam to specialized medical training in Spain (MIR), and to evaluate the medical reasoning followed by these LLM to answer those questions. A dataset, RheumaMIR, of 145 rheumatology-related questions, extracted from the exams held between 2010 and 2023, was created for that purpose, used as a prompt for the LLM, and was publicly distributed. Six rheumatologists with clinical and teaching experience evaluated the clinical reasoning of the chatbots using a 5-point Likert scale and their degree of agreement was analyzed. The association between variables that could influence the models' accuracy (i.e., year of the exam question, disease addressed, type of question and genre) was studied. ChatGPT demonstrated a high level of performance in both accuracy, 66.43%, and clinical reasoning, median (Q1–Q3), 4.5 (2.33–4.67). However, GPT-4 showed better performance with an accuracy score of 93.71% and a median clinical reasoning value of 4.67 (4.5–4.83). These findings suggest that LLM may serve as valuable tools in rheumatology education, aiding in exam preparation and supplementing traditional teaching methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study aimed to evaluate the performance of two Large Language Models (LLMs): ChatGPT (based on GPT-3.5) and GPT-4 with two temperature parameter values, on the Polish Medical Final Examination (MFE). The models were tested on three editions of the MFE from: Spring 2022, Autumn 2022, and Spring 2023 in two language versions—English and Polish. The accuracies of both models were compared and the relationships between the correctness of answers with the answer's metrics were investigated. The study demonstrated that GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 in all three examinations regardless of the language used. GPT-4 achieved mean accuracies of 79.7% for both Polish and English versions, passing all MFE versions. GPT-3.5 had mean accuracies of 54.8% for Polish and 60.3% for English, passing none and 2 of 3 Polish versions for temperature parameter equal to 0 and 1 respectively while passing all English versions regardless of the temperature parameter value. GPT-4 score was mostly lower than the average score of a medical student. There was a statistically significant correlation between the correctness of the answers and the index of difficulty for both models. The overall accuracy of both models was still suboptimal and worse than the average for medical students. This emphasizes the need for further improvements in LLMs before they can be reliably deployed in medical settings. These findings suggest an increasing potential for the usage of LLMs in terms of medical education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ChatGPT is a large language model trained on text corpora and reinforced with human supervision. Because ChatGPT can provide human-like responses to complex questions, it could become an easily accessible source of medical advice for patients. However, its ability to answer medical questions appropriately and equitably remains unknown. We presented ChatGPT with 96 advice-seeking vignettes that varied across clinical contexts, medical histories, and social characteristics. We analyzed responses for clinical appropriateness by concordance with guidelines, recommendation type, and consideration of social factors. Ninety-three (97%) responses were appropriate and did not explicitly violate clinical guidelines. Recommendations in response to advice-seeking questions were completely absent (N = 34, 35%), general (N = 18, 18%), or specific (N = 44, 46%). 53 (55%) explicitly considered social factors like race or insurance status, which in some cases changed clinical recommendations. ChatGPT consistently provided background information in response to medical questions but did not reliably offer appropriate and personalized medical advice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) has been a subject of performance study for artificial intelligence (AI) models. However, their performance on questions involving USMLE soft skills remains unexplored. This study aimed to evaluate ChatGPT and GPT-4 on USMLE questions involving communication skills, ethics, empathy, and professionalism. We used 80 USMLE-style questions involving soft skills, taken from the USMLE website and the AMBOSS question bank. A follow-up query was used to assess the models' consistency. The performance of the AI models was compared to that of previous AMBOSS users. GPT-4 outperformed ChatGPT, correctly answering 90% compared to ChatGPT's 62.5%. GPT-4 showed more confidence, not revising any responses, while ChatGPT modified its original answers 82.5% of the time. The performance of GPT-4 was higher than that of AMBOSS's past users. Both AI models, notably GPT-4, showed capacity for empathy, indicating AI's potential to meet the complex interpersonal, ethical, and professional demands intrinsic to the practice of medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The release and rapid diffusion of ChatGPT have caught the attention of educators worldwide. Some educators are enthusiastic about its potential to support learning. Others are concerned about how it might circumvent learning opportunities or contribute to misinformation. To better understand reactions about ChatGPT concerning education, we analyzed Twitter data (16,830,997 tweets from 5,541,457 users). Based on topic modeling and sentiment analysis, we provide an overview of global perceptions and reactions to ChatGPT regarding education. ChatGPT triggered a massive response on Twitter, with education being the most tweeted content topic. Topics ranged from specific (e.g., cheating) to broad (e.g., opportunities), which were discussed with mixed sentiment. We traced that authority decisions may influence public opinions. We discussed that the average reaction on Twitter (e.g., using ChatGPT to cheat in exams) differs from discussions in which education and teaching–learning researchers are likely to be more interested (e.g., ChatGPT as an intelligent learning partner). This study provides insights into people's reactions when new groundbreaking technology is released and implications for scientific and policy communication in rapidly changing circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have attracted hundreds of millions of users and have become part of the public discourse. Many believe that such models will disrupt society and lead to significant changes in the education system and information generation. So far, this belief is based on either colloquial evidence or benchmarks from the owners of the models—both lack scientific rigor. We systematically assess the quality of AI-generated content through a large-scale study comparing human-written versus ChatGPT-generated argumentative student essays. We use essays that were rated by a large number of human experts (teachers). We augment the analysis by considering a set of linguistic characteristics of the generated essays. Our results demonstrate that ChatGPT generates essays that are rated higher regarding quality than human-written essays. The writing style of the AI models exhibits linguistic characteristics that are different from those of the human-written essays. Since the technology is readily available, we believe that educators must act immediately. We must re-invent homework and develop teaching concepts that utilize these AI models in the same way as math utilizes the calculator: teach the general concepts first and then use AI tools to free up time for other learning objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare the performance of humans, GPT-4.0 and GPT-3.5 in answering multiple-choice questions from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Basic and Clinical Science Course (BCSC) self-assessment program, available at https://www.aao.org/education/self-assessments. In June 2023, text-based multiple-choice questions were submitted to GPT-4.0 and GPT-3.5. The AAO provides the percentage of humans who selected the correct answer, which was analyzed for comparison. All questions were classified by 10 subspecialties and 3 practice areas (diagnostics/clinics, medical treatment, surgery). Out of 1023 questions, GPT-4.0 achieved the best score (82.4%), followed by humans (75.7%) and GPT-3.5 (65.9%), with significant difference in accuracy rates (always P < 0.0001). Both GPT-4.0 and GPT-3.5 showed the worst results in surgery-related questions (74.6% and 57.0% respectively). For difficult questions (answered incorrectly by > 50% of humans), both GPT models favorably compared to humans, without reaching significancy. The word count for answers provided by GPT-4.0 was significantly lower than those produced by GPT-3.5 (160 ± 56 and 206 ± 77 respectively, P < 0.0001); however, incorrect responses were longer (P < 0.02). GPT-4.0 represented a substantial improvement over GPT-3.5, achieving better performance than humans in an AAO BCSC self-assessment test. However, ChatGPT is still limited by inconsistency across different practice areas, especially when it comes to surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Computational language models (LMs), most notably exemplified by the widespread success of OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot, show impressive performance on a wide range of linguistic tasks, thus providing cognitive science and linguistics with a computational working model to empirically study different aspects of human language. Here, we use LMs to test the hypothesis that languages with more speakers tend to be easier to learn. In two experiments, we train several LMs—ranging from very simple n-gram models to state-of-the-art deep neural networks—on written cross-linguistic corpus data covering 1293 different languages and statistically estimate learning difficulty. Using a variety of quantitative methods and machine learning techniques to account for phylogenetic relatedness and geographical proximity of languages, we show that there is robust evidence for a relationship between learning difficulty and speaker population size. However, contrary to expectations derived from previous research, our results suggest that languages with more speakers tend to be harder to learn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ChatGPT is a large language model trained on text corpora and reinforced with human supervision. Because ChatGPT can provide human-like responses to complex questions, it could become an easily accessible source of medical advice for patients. However, its ability to answer medical questions appropriately and equitably remains unknown. We presented ChatGPT with 96 advice-seeking vignettes that varied across clinical contexts, medical histories, and social characteristics. We analyzed responses for clinical appropriateness by concordance with guidelines, recommendation type, and consideration of social factors. Ninety-three (97%) responses were appropriate and did not explicitly violate clinical guidelines. Recommendations in response to advice-seeking questions were completely absent (N = 34, 35%), general (N = 18, 18%), or specific (N = 44, 46%). 53 (55%) explicitly considered social factors like race or insurance status, which in some cases changed clinical recommendations. ChatGPT consistently provided background information in response to medical questions but did not reliably offer appropriate and personalized medical advice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of large language models has led to the development of powerful tools such as ChatGPT that can produce text indistinguishable from human-generated work. With the increasing accessibility of such technology, students across the globe may utilize it to help with their school work—a possibility that has sparked ample discussion on the integrity of student evaluation processes in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). To date, it is unclear how such tools perform compared to students on university-level courses across various disciplines. Further, students' perspectives regarding the use of such tools in school work, and educators' perspectives on treating their use as plagiarism, remain unknown. Here, we compare the performance of the state-of-the-art tool, ChatGPT, against that of students on 32 university-level courses. We also assess the degree to which its use can be detected by two classifiers designed specifically for this purpose. Additionally, we conduct a global survey across five countries, as well as a more in-depth survey at the authors' institution, to discern students' and educators' perceptions of ChatGPT's use in school work. We find that ChatGPT's performance is comparable, if not superior, to that of students in a multitude of courses. Moreover, current AI-text classifiers cannot reliably detect ChatGPT's use in school work, due to both their propensity to classify human-written answers as AI-generated, as well as the relative ease with which AI-generated text can be edited to evade detection. Finally, there seems to be an emerging consensus among students to use the tool, and among educators to treat its use as plagiarism. Our findings offer insights that could guide policy discussions addressing the integration of artificial intelligence into educational frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) has been a subject of performance study for artificial intelligence (AI) models. However, their performance on questions involving USMLE soft skills remains unexplored. This study aimed to evaluate ChatGPT and GPT-4 on USMLE questions involving communication skills, ethics, empathy, and professionalism. We used 80 USMLE-style questions involving soft skills, taken from the USMLE website and the AMBOSS question bank. A follow-up query was used to assess the models' consistency. The performance of the AI models was compared to that of previous AMBOSS users. GPT-4 outperformed ChatGPT, correctly answering 90% compared to ChatGPT's 62.5%. GPT-4 showed more confidence, not revising any responses, while ChatGPT modified its original answers 82.5% of the time. The performance of GPT-4 was higher than that of AMBOSS's past users. Both AI models, notably GPT-4, showed capacity for empathy, indicating AI's potential to meet the complex interpersonal, ethical, and professional demands intrinsic to the practice of medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The release and rapid diffusion of ChatGPT have caught the attention of educators worldwide. Some educators are enthusiastic about its potential to support learning. Others are concerned about how it might circumvent learning opportunities or contribute to misinformation. To better understand reactions about ChatGPT concerning education, we analyzed Twitter data (16,830,997 tweets from 5,541,457 users). Based on topic modeling and sentiment analysis, we provide an overview of global perceptions and reactions to ChatGPT regarding education. ChatGPT triggered a massive response on Twitter, with education being the most tweeted content topic. Topics ranged from specific (e.g., cheating) to broad (e.g., opportunities), which were discussed with mixed sentiment. We traced that authority decisions may influence public opinions. We discussed that the average reaction on Twitter (e.g., using ChatGPT to cheat in exams) differs from discussions in which education and teaching–learning researchers are likely to be more interested (e.g., ChatGPT as an intelligent learning partner). This study provides insights into people's reactions when new groundbreaking technology is released and implications for scientific and policy communication in rapidly changing circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although chatbots such as ChatGPT can facilitate cost-effective text generation and editing, factually incorrect responses (hallucinations) limit their utility. This study evaluates one particular type of hallucination: fabricated bibliographic citations that do not represent actual scholarly works. We used ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 to produce short literature reviews on 42 multidisciplinary topics, compiling data on the 636 bibliographic citations (references) found in the 84 papers. We then searched multiple databases and websites to determine the prevalence of fabricated citations, to identify errors in the citations to non-fabricated papers, and to evaluate adherence to APA citation format. Within this set of documents, 55% of the GPT-3.5 citations but just 18% of the GPT-4 citations are fabricated. Likewise, 43% of the real (non-fabricated) GPT-3.5 citations but just 24% of the real GPT-4 citations include substantive citation errors. Although GPT-4 is a major improvement over GPT-3.5, problems remain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although chatbots such as ChatGPT can facilitate cost-effective text generation and editing, factually incorrect responses (hallucinations) limit their utility. This study evaluates one particular type of hallucination: fabricated bibliographic citations that do not represent actual scholarly works. We used ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 to produce short literature reviews on 42 multidisciplinary topics, compiling data on the 636 bibliographic citations (references) found in the 84 papers. We then searched multiple databases and websites to determine the prevalence of fabricated citations, to identify errors in the citations to non-fabricated papers, and to evaluate adherence to APA citation format. Within this set of documents, 55% of the GPT-3.5 citations but just 18% of the GPT-4 citations are fabricated. Likewise, 43% of the real (non-fabricated) GPT-3.5 citations but just 24% of the real GPT-4 citations include substantive citation errors. Although GPT-4 is a major improvement over GPT-3.5, problems remain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While radiologists can describe a fracture's morphology and complexity with ease, the translation into classification systems such as the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Osteosynthesefragen (AO) Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium is more challenging. We tested the performance of generic chatbots and chatbots aware of specific knowledge of the AO classification provided by a vector-index and compared it to human readers. In the 100 radiological reports we created based on random AO codes, chatbots provided AO codes significantly faster than humans (mean 3.2 s per case vs. 50 s per case, p <.001) though not reaching human performance (max. chatbot performance of 86% correct full AO codes vs. 95% in human readers). In general, chatbots based on GPT 4 outperformed the ones based on GPT 3.5-Turbo. Further, we found that providing specific knowledge substantially enhances the chatbot's performance and consistency as the context-aware chatbot based on GPT 4 provided 71% consistent correct full AO codes for the compared to the 2% consistent correct full AO codes for the generic ChatGPT 4. This provides evidence, that refining and providing specific context to ChatGPT will be the next essential step in harnessing its power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of large language models has led to the development of powerful tools such as ChatGPT that can produce text indistinguishable from human-generated work. With the increasing accessibility of such technology, students across the globe may utilize it to help with their school work—a possibility that has sparked ample discussion on the integrity of student evaluation processes in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). To date, it is unclear how such tools perform compared to students on university-level courses across various disciplines. Further, students' perspectives regarding the use of such tools in school work, and educators' perspectives on treating their use as plagiarism, remain unknown. Here, we compare the performance of the state-of-the-art tool, ChatGPT, against that of students on 32 university-level courses. We also assess the degree to which its use can be detected by two classifiers designed specifically for this purpose. Additionally, we conduct a global survey across five countries, as well as a more in-depth survey at the authors' institution, to discern students' and educators' perceptions of ChatGPT's use in school work. We find that ChatGPT's performance is comparable, if not superior, to that of students in a multitude of courses. Moreover, current AI-text classifiers cannot reliably detect ChatGPT's use in school work, due to both their propensity to classify human-written answers as AI-generated, as well as the relative ease with which AI-generated text can be edited to evade detection. Finally, there seems to be an emerging consensus among students to use the tool, and among educators to treat its use as plagiarism. Our findings offer insights that could guide policy discussions addressing the integration of artificial intelligence into educational frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ChatGPT is not only fun to chat with, but it also searches information, answers questions, and gives advice. With consistent moral advice, it can improve the moral judgment and decisions of users. Unfortunately, ChatGPT's advice is not consistent. Nonetheless, it does influence users' moral judgment, we find in an experiment, even if they know they are advised by a chatting bot, and they underestimate how much they are influenced. Thus, ChatGPT corrupts rather than improves its users' moral judgment. While these findings call for better design of ChatGPT and similar bots, we also propose training to improve users' digital literacy as a remedy. Transparency, however, is not sufficient to enable the responsible use of AI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The field of gastroenterology (GI) is constantly evolving. It is essential to pinpoint the most pressing and important research questions. To evaluate the potential of chatGPT for identifying research priorities in GI and provide a starting point for further investigation. We queried chatGPT on four key topics in GI: inflammatory bowel disease, microbiome, Artificial Intelligence in GI, and advanced endoscopy in GI. A panel of experienced gastroenterologists separately reviewed and rated the generated research questions on a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the most important and relevant to current research in GI. chatGPT generated relevant and clear research questions. Yet, the questions were not considered original by the panel of gastroenterologists. On average, the questions were rated 3.6 ± 1.4, with inter-rater reliability ranging from 0.80 to 0.98 (p < 0.001). The mean grades for relevance, clarity, specificity, and originality were 4.9 ± 0.1, 4.6 ± 0.4, 3.1 ± 0.2, 1.5 ± 0.4, respectively. Our study suggests that Large Language Models (LLMs) may be a useful tool for identifying research priorities in the field of GI, but more work is needed to improve the novelty of the generated research questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "A multinational study on the factors influencing university students' attitudes and usage of ChatGPT" published in Scientific Reports. The correction addresses an error in Affiliation 17, which incorrectly listed the Department of Clinical Pharmacy at The National Hepatology and Tropical Medicine Research Institute in Cairo, Egypt. The correct affiliation is the Department of Clinical Pharmacy at Al-Baha University in Al-Baha, Saudi Arabia. The original article has been corrected. The study was conducted by a group of authors from various institutions. [Extracted from the article]