文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

ChatGPT 3.5 fails to write appropriate multiple choice practice exam questions.

作者信息

Ngo Alexander, Gupta Saumya, Perrine Oliver, Reddy Rithik, Ershadi Sherry, Remick Daniel

机构信息

Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Boston University Chobanian and Avidesian School of Medicine, Boston MA, USA.

出版信息

Acad Pathol. 2023 Dec 19;11(1):100099. doi: 10.1016/j.acpath.2023.100099. eCollection 2024 Jan-Mar.


DOI:10.1016/j.acpath.2023.100099
PMID:38162414
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10753050/
Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) may have a profound impact on traditional teaching in academic settings. Multiple concerns have been raised, especially related to using ChatGPT for creating essays. However, AI programs such as ChatGPT may augment teaching techniques. In this article, we used ChatGPT 3.5 to create 60 multiple choice questions. Author written text was uploaded and ChatGPT asked to create multiple choice questions with an explanation for the correct answer and explanations for the incorrect answers. Unfortunately, ChatGPT only generated correct questions and answers with explanations in 32 % of the questions (19 out of 60). In many instances, ChatGPT failed to provide an explanation for the incorrect answers. An additional 25 % of the questions had answers that were either wrong or misleading. A grade of 32 % would be considered failing in most courses. Despite these issues, instructors may still find ChatGPT useful for creating practice exams with explanations-with the caveat that extensive editing may be required.

摘要
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/946a/10753050/7dcaa99ba0fc/gr4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/946a/10753050/bf5f7a44d5ec/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/946a/10753050/f6f6ddac5fad/gr2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/946a/10753050/17fad9670506/gr3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/946a/10753050/7dcaa99ba0fc/gr4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/946a/10753050/bf5f7a44d5ec/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/946a/10753050/f6f6ddac5fad/gr2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/946a/10753050/17fad9670506/gr3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/946a/10753050/7dcaa99ba0fc/gr4.jpg

相似文献

[1]
ChatGPT 3.5 fails to write appropriate multiple choice practice exam questions.

Acad Pathol. 2023-12-19

[2]
Assessing question characteristic influences on ChatGPT's performance and response-explanation consistency: Insights from Taiwan's Nursing Licensing Exam.

Int J Nurs Stud. 2024-5

[3]
Probing artificial intelligence in neurosurgical training: ChatGPT takes a neurosurgical residents written exam.

Brain Spine. 2023-11-29

[4]
Performance of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 on the European Board of Urology (EBU) exams: a comparative analysis.

World J Urol. 2024-7-26

[5]
Evaluating ChatGPT-3.5 and Claude-2 in Answering and Explaining Conceptual Medical Physiology Multiple-Choice Questions.

Cureus. 2023-9-29

[6]
Can ChatGPT generate practice question explanations for medical students, a new faculty teaching tool?

Med Teach. 2025-3

[7]
Performance of ChatGPT on the Peruvian National Licensing Medical Examination: Cross-Sectional Study.

JMIR Med Educ. 2023-9-28

[8]
[ChatGPT is an above-average student at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Zaragoza and an excellent collaborator in the development of teaching materials].

Rev Esp Patol. 2024

[9]
Comparing answers of artificial intelligence systems and clinical toxicologists to questions about poisoning: Can their answers be distinguished?

Emergencias. 2024-6

[10]
Assessing the Accuracy of Information on Medication Abortion: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT and Google Bard AI.

Cureus. 2024-1-2

引用本文的文献

[1]
Using a Hybrid of AI and Template-Based Method in Automatic Item Generation to Create Multiple-Choice Questions in Medical Education: Hybrid AIG.

JMIR Form Res. 2025-4-4

[2]
Challenging the curve: can ChatGPT-generated MCQs reduce grade inflation in pharmacy education.

Front Pharmacol. 2025-1-29

[3]
AI versus human-generated multiple-choice questions for medical education: a cohort study in a high-stakes examination.

BMC Med Educ. 2025-2-8

[4]
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Learning on Nursing Students' Ethical Decision-making and Clinical Reasoning in Pediatric Care: A Quasi-Experimental Study.

Comput Inform Nurs. 2024-10-1

[5]
ChatGPT's ability or prompt quality: what determines the success of generating multiple-choice questions.

Acad Pathol. 2024-5-21

[6]
Applications of Large Language Models in Pathology.

Bioengineering (Basel). 2024-3-31

本文引用的文献

[1]
Is using ChatGPT cheating, plagiarism, both, neither, or forward thinking?

Patterns (N Y). 2023-2-28

[2]
The future of ChatGPT in academic research and publishing: A commentary for clinical and translational medicine.

Clin Transl Med. 2023-3

[3]
Automatic computer science domain multiple-choice questions generation based on informative sentences.

PeerJ Comput Sci. 2022-8-16

[4]
Does developing multiple-choice Questions Improve Medical Students' Learning? A Systematic Review.

Med Educ Online. 2022-12

[5]
Medical students: what educational resources are they using?

BMC Med Educ. 2019-1-25

[6]
Medical students create multiple-choice questions for learning in pathology education: a pilot study.

BMC Med Educ. 2018-8-22

[7]
Effect of a limited-enforcement intelligent tutoring system in dermatopathology on student errors, goals and solution paths.

Artif Intell Med. 2009-9-25

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索