MedEdMENTOR AI: Can artificial intelligence help medical education researchers select theoretical constructs?
Ow, G.; Rodman, A.; Stetson, G. V.
Show abstract
INTRODUCTIONMedical education scholarship often lacks a strong theoretical underpinning, with this gap most often affecting early-career researchers and researchers in the Global South. Large language models (LLMs) have shown considerable promise to augment human writing and creativity in a variety of settings. In this study, we describe the development of MedEdMENTOR -- an online platform for medical education research with a library of over 250 theories -- and the development and evaluation of MedEdMENTOR AI, an LLM containing knowledge from MedEdMENTOR and the first AI mentor for medical education research. METHODSFrom a postpositivist paradigm, we evaluated MedEdMENTOR AI by testing it against 6 months of qualitative research published in 24 core medical educational journals. In a blinded fashion, we presented MedEdMENTOR AI with only the phenomenon of the qualitative study, and asked it to recommend 5 theories that could be used to study that phenomenon. RESULTSFor 55% (29 of 53) of studies, MedEdMENTOR AI recommended the actual theoretical constructs chosen in the respective qualitative studies. CONCLUSIONSOur data is preliminary, but it suggests that MedEdMENTOR AI and other LLMs can be highly effective in guiding medical education scholars towards theories that may be applicable in their research. Further research is needed to assess performance on other tasks in medical education research.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Female-dominated disciplines have lower evaluated research quality and funding success rates, for men and women 91%
- Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts 91%
- An Experimental Test of the Effects of Redacting Grant Applicant Identifiers on Peer Review Outcomes 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- To Tweet or Not to Tweet, That is the Question: A Randomized Trial of Twitter Effects on Article Engagement in Medical Education 93%
- Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors 93%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Fast and frugal decision tree for the rapid critical appraisal of systematic reviews 92%
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 91%
- Catchii: empowering literature review screening in healthcare 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of Statistical Illiteracy in Latin American Clinicians and of the Efficacy of a 10-Hour Course 91%
- Large language models for generating medical examinations: systematic review 90%
- COVIDReady2 Study Protocol: Cross-sectional Survey of Medical Student Volunteering and Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.