ReviewJMIR medical education2025
ChatGPT in Medical Education: Bibliometric and Visual Analysis.
Review in JMIR medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Humans vs. large language models in neurology board examination: performance, limitations, and reference reliability.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in German Continuing Medical Education Assessments: Protocol for a Fully Crossed Experimental Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- A 2-Tiered Rescue Protocol to Mitigate Difficulty-Based Failures of ChatGPT (GPT-5) and Gemini on the German M2 Medical Examination: Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Acceptance and use of GenAI among medical and health sciences students in Saudi Arabia: an extended TAM study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Authoritative Textbook-Augmented Large Language Models for High-Altitude Public Health Medical Education in the Xizang Autonomous Region: Cross-Sectional Comparative Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Communication Skills in Medical Education and Practice: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Current Research Landscape.Cureus · 2026Review
- Assessment of ChatGPT-5 as an Artificial Intelligence Tool for Exploring Emerging Dimensions of Clinical Simulation: A Proof-of-concept Study.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Quality, readability, and patient safety of ChatGPT-generated responses to fall-related questions in older adults: a multidisciplinary evaluation.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-powered chatbots' responses to orthodontic questions from the dentistry specialization examination: Accuracy and source evaluation.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Hotspot Evolution and Future Prospects of Large Language Models in Medical Education: A Bibliometric Analysis.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: ChatGPT is a generative artificial intelligence-based chatbot developed by OpenAI. Since its release in the second half of 2022, it has been widely applied across various fields. In particular, the application of ChatGPT in medical education has become a significant trend. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the research developments and trends regarding ChatGPT in medical education, we conducted an extensive review and analysis of the current state of research in this field. Objective: This study used bibliometric and visualization analysis to explore the current state of research and development trends regarding ChatGPT in medical education. Methods: A bibliometric analysis of 407 articles on ChatGPT in medical education published between March 2023 and June 2025 was conducted using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Bibliometrix (RTool of RStudio). Visualization of countries, institutions, journals, authors, keywords, and references was also conducted. Results: This bibliometric analysis included a total of 407 studies. Research in this field began in 2023, showing a notable surge in annual publications until June 2025. The United States, China, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and Canada produced the most publications. Networks of collaboration also formed among institutions. The University of California system was a core research institution, with 3.4% (14/407) of the publications and 0.17 betweenness centrality. BMC Medical Education, Medical Teacher, and the Journal of Medical Internet Research were all among the top 10 journals in terms of both publication volume and citation frequency. The most prolific author was Yavuz Selim Kiyak, who has established a stable collaboration network with Isil Irem Budakoglu and Ozlem Coskun. Author collaboration in this field is usually limited, with most academic research conducted by independent teams and little communication between teams. The most frequent keywords were "AI," "ChatGPT," and "medical education." Keyword analysis further revealed "educational assessment," "exam," and "clinical practice" as current research hot spots. The most cited paper was "Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-Assisted Medical Education Using Large Language Models," and the paper with the strongest citation burst was "Are ChatGPT's Knowledge and Interpretation Ability Comparable to Those of Medical Students in Korea for Taking a Parasitology Examination?: A Descriptive Study." Both papers focus on evaluating ChatGPT's performance in medical exams. Conclusions: This study reveals the significant potential of ChatGPT in medical education. As the technology improves, its applications will expand into more fields. To promote the diversification and effectiveness of ChatGPT in medical education, future research should strengthen interregional collaboration and enhance research quality. These findings provide valuable insights for researchers to identify research perspectives and guide future research directions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.