Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37999958›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2023

Usability and Efficacy of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots (ChatGPT) for Health Sciences Students: Protocol for a Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial.

Mirella Veras, Joseph-Omer Dyer, Morgan Rooney, Paulo Goberlânio Barros Silva, Derek Rutherford, Dahlia Kairy

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05963802 (Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Usability of Artificial Intelligence), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05963802 nacompletednot on this map

Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Usability of Artificial Intelligence (ChatGPT) for Health Sciences Students (AIHSS)

TypeinterventionalSponsorCarleton UniversityRan2023 to 2023Enrolled26ConditionsEducational Activities, AI (Artificial Intelligence)ArmsArtificial Intelligence (ChatGPT) Group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mirella VerasHealth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4124-1543
Joseph-Omer DyerÉcole de Réadaptation, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7570-9941
Morgan RooneyTeaching and Learning Services, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5261-5929
Paulo Goberlânio Barros SilvaCentro Universitário Christus, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1513-9027
Derek RutherfordSchool of Physiotherapy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2688-6201
Dahlia KairyCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6872-6607

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into health sciences students' education holds significant importance. The rapid advancement of AI has opened new horizons in scientific writing and has the potential to reshape human-technology interactions. AI in education may impact critical thinking, leading to unintended consequences that need to be addressed. Understanding the implications of AI adoption in education is essential for ensuring its responsible and effective use, empowering health sciences students to navigate AI-driven technologies' evolving field with essential knowledge and skills.

objectiveThis study aims to provide details on the study protocol and the methods used to investigate the usability and efficacy of ChatGPT, a large language model. The primary focus is on assessing its role as a supplementary learning tool for improving learning processes and outcomes among undergraduate health sciences students, with a specific emphasis on chronic diseases.

methodsThis single-blinded, crossover, randomized, controlled trial is part of a broader mixed methods study, and the primary emphasis of this paper is on the quantitative component of the overall research. A total of 50 students will be recruited for this study. The alternative hypothesis posits that there will be a significant difference in learning outcomes and technology usability between students using ChatGPT (group A) and those using standard web-based tools (group B) to access resources and complete assignments. Participants will be allocated to sequence AB or BA in a 1:1 ratio using computer-generated randomization. Both arms include students' participation in a writing assignment intervention, with a washout period of 21 days between interventions. The primary outcome is the measure of the technology usability and effectiveness of ChatGPT, whereas the secondary outcome is the measure of students' perceptions and experiences with ChatGPT as a learning tool. Outcome data will be collected up to 24 hours after the interventions.

resultsThis study aims to understand the potential benefits and challenges of incorporating AI as an educational tool, particularly in the context of student learning. The findings are expected to identify critical areas that need attention and help educators develop a deeper understanding of AI's impact on the educational field. By exploring the differences in the usability and efficacy between ChatGPT and conventional web-based tools, this study seeks to inform educators and students on the responsible integration of AI into academic settings, with a specific focus on health sciences education.

conclusionsBy exploring the usability and efficacy of ChatGPT compared with conventional web-based tools, this study seeks to inform educators and students about the responsible integration of AI into academic settings.

trial registrationClinicalTrails.gov NCT05963802; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05963802. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/51873.

Indexed as

AIartificial intelligenceChatGPTcrossover RCTeducationhealth scienceslearning outcomesOpenAIperceptionsrandomized controlled trialRCTusability

Identifiers

PMID37999958
PMCPMC10709780

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.