Leveraging evaluation of quality on medical education research with ChatGPT.

What is the educational challenge? The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) is widely used to evaluate the quality of quantitative research in medical education. It has strong evidence of validity and is endorsed by guidelines. However, the manual appraisal process is time-consuming and resource-intensive, highlighting the need for more efficient methods. What are the proposed solutions? We propose to use ChatGPT to evaluate the quality of medical education research with the MERSQI and compare its scoring with those of human evaluators. What are the potential benefits to a broader global audience? Using ChatGPT to evaluate medical education research with the MERSQI can decrease the resources required for quality appraisal. This allows faster summaries of evidence, reducing the workload of researchers, editors, and educators. Furthermore, ChatGPTs' capability to extract supporting excerpts provides transparency and may have the potential for data extraction and training new medical education researchers. What are the next steps? We plan to continue evaluating medical education research with ChatGPT using the MERSQI and other instruments to determine its feasibility in this realm. Moreover, we plan to investigate which types of studies ChatGPT performs best in.

Performance of ChatGPT, Bard, Claude, and Bing on the Peruvian National Licensing Medical Examination: a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: We aimed to describe the performance and evaluate the educational value of justifications provided by artificial intelligence chatbots, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Bard, Claude, and Bing, on the Peruvian National Medical Licensing Examination (P-NLME). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analytical study. On July 25, 2023, each multiple-choice question (MCQ) from the P-NLME was entered into each chatbot (GPT-3, GPT-4, Bing, Bard, and Claude) 3 times. Then, 4 medical educators categorized the MCQs in terms of medical area, item type, and whether the MCQ required Peru-specific knowledge. They assessed the educational value of the justifications from the 2 top performers (GPT-4 and Bing). RESULTS: GPT-4 scored 86.7% and Bing scored 82.2%, followed by Bard and Claude, and the historical performance of Peruvian examinees was 55%. Among the factors associated with correct answers, only MCQs that required Peru-specific knowledge had lower odds (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.61), whereas the remaining factors showed no associations. In assessing the educational value of justifications provided by GPT-4 and Bing, neither showed any significant differences in certainty, usefulness, or potential use in the classroom. CONCLUSION: Among chatbots, GPT-4 and Bing were the top performers, with Bing performing better at Peru-specific MCQs. Moreover, the educational value of justifications provided by the GPT-4 and Bing could be deemed appropriate. However, it is essential to start addressing the educational value of these chatbots, rather than merely their performance on examinations.

Factors associated with medical students' scores on the National Licensing Exam in Peru: a systematic review

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify factors that have been studied for their associations with National Licensing Examination (ENAM) scores in Peru. METHODS: A search was conducted of literature databases and registers, including EMBASE, SciELO, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Peru's National Register of Research Work, and Google Scholar. The following key terms were used: "ENAM" and "associated factors." Studies in English and Spanish were included. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). RESULTS: In total, 38,500 participants were enrolled in 12 studies. Most (11/12) studies were cross-sectional, except for one case-control study. Three studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. The mean MERSQI was 10.33. A better performance on the ENAM was associated with a higher-grade point average (GPA) (n=8), internship setting in EsSalud (n=4), and regular academic status (n=3). Other factors showed associations in various studies, such as medical school, internship setting, age, gender, socioeconomic status, simulations test, study resources, preparation time, learning styles, study techniques, test-anxiety, and self-regulated learning strategies. CONCLUSION: The ENAM is a multifactorial phenomenon; our model gives students a locus of control on what they can do to improve their score (i.e., implement self-regulated learning strategies) and faculty, health policymakers, and managers a framework to improve the ENAM score (i.e., design remediation programs to improve GPA and integrate anxiety-management courses into the curriculum).