RESUMEN
Amidst the complex transition to medical college, encompassing a myriad of academic, social, and personal adjustments, MBBS students in India confront multifaceted challenges that can precipitate adjustment disorder, a phenomenon understudied within the Indian context. Therefore, it is of interest to assess adjustment disorder among first-year MBBS students within six months of enrolment. We used a Google form encompassing adjustment disorder new-module 20 for data collection and found that 67% of the 401 responses from first-year medical students exhibited adjustment disorder. The top stressors identified included time pressure, work pressure, financial problems, moving to a new home, and termination of important leisure activities. Female gender, age group 21-25, conflicts in working life, financial problems, own serious illness, family conflicts, pressure to meet deadlines, and excessive workload showed significant associations with adjustment disorder.
RESUMEN
Background Generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as ChatGPT-3.5 and Claude-2 may assist in explaining complex medical science topics. A few studies have shown that AI can solve complicated physiology problems that require critical thinking and analysis. However, further studies are required to validate the effectiveness of AI in answering conceptual multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in human physiology. Objective This study aimed to evaluate and compare the proficiency of ChatGPT-3.5 and Claude-2 in answering and explaining a curated set of MCQs in medical physiology. Methods In this cross-sectional study, a set of 55 MCQs from 10 competencies of medical physiology was purposefully constructed that required comprehension, problem-solving, and analytical skills to solve them. The MCQs and a structured prompt for response generation were presented to ChatGPT-3.5 and Claude-2. The explanations provided by both AI systems were documented in an Excel spreadsheet. All three authors subjected these explanations to a rating process using a scale of 0 to 3. A rating of 0 was assigned to an incorrect, 1 to a partially correct, 2 to a correct explanation with some aspects missing, and 3 to a perfectly correct explanation. Both AI models were evaluated for their ability to choose the correct answer (option) and provide clear and comprehensive explanations of the MCQs. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare AI responses. The Fleiss multi-rater kappa (κ) was used to determine the score agreement among the three raters. The statistical significance level was decided at P ≤ 0.05. Results Claude-2 answered 40 MCQs correctly, which was significantly higher than the 26 correct responses from ChatGPT-3.5. The rating distribution for the explanations generated by Claude-2 was significantly higher than that of ChatGPT-3.5. The κ values were 0.804 and 0.818 for Claude-2 and ChatGPT-3.5, respectively. Conclusion In terms of answering and elucidating conceptual MCQs in medical physiology, Claude-2 surpassed ChatGPT-3.5. However, accessing Claude-2 from India requires the use of a virtual private network, which may raise security concerns.
RESUMEN
Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is evolving in the medical education system. ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing are AI-based models that can solve problems in medical education. However, the applicability of AI to create reasoning-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in the field of medical physiology is yet to be explored. Objective We aimed to assess and compare the applicability of ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing in generating reasoning-based MCQs for MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery) undergraduate students on the subject of physiology. Methods The National Medical Commission of India has developed an 11-module physiology curriculum with various competencies. Two physiologists independently chose a competency from each module. The third physiologist prompted all three AIs to generate five MCQs for each chosen competency. The two physiologists who provided the competencies rated the MCQs generated by the AIs on a scale of 0-3 for validity, difficulty, and reasoning ability required to answer them. We analyzed the average of the two scores using the Kruskal-Wallis test to compare the distribution across the total and module-wise responses, followed by a post-hoc test for pairwise comparisons. We used Cohen's Kappa (Κ) to assess the agreement in scores between the two raters. We expressed the data as a median with an interquartile range. We determined their statistical significance by a p-value <0.05. Results ChatGPT and Bard generated 110 MCQs for the chosen competencies. However, Bing provided only 100 MCQs as it failed to generate them for two competencies. The validity of the MCQs was rated as 3 (3-3) for ChatGPT, 3 (1.5-3) for Bard, and 3 (1.5-3) for Bing, showing a significant difference (p<0.001) among the models. The difficulty of the MCQs was rated as 1 (0-1) for ChatGPT, 1 (1-2) for Bard, and 1 (1-2) for Bing, with a significant difference (p=0.006). The required reasoning ability to answer the MCQs was rated as 1 (1-2) for ChatGPT, 1 (1-2) for Bard, and 1 (1-2) for Bing, with no significant difference (p=0.235). K was ≥ 0.8 for all three parameters across all three AI models. Conclusion AI still needs to evolve to generate reasoning-based MCQs in medical physiology. ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing showed certain limitations. Bing generated significantly least valid MCQs, while ChatGPT generated significantly least difficult MCQs.