AI in obstetrics: Evaluating residents' capabilities and interaction strategies with ChatGPT.

In line with the digital transformation trend in medical training, students may resort to artificial intelligence (AI) for learning. This study assessed the interaction between obstetrics residents and ChatGPT during clinically oriented summative evaluations related to acute hepatic steatosis of pregnancy, and their self-reported competencies in information technology (IT) and AI. The participants in this semi-qualitative observational study were 14 obstetrics residents from two university hospitals. Students' queries were categorized into three distinct types: third-party enquiries; search-engine-style queries; and GPT-centric prompts. Responses were compared against a standardized answer produced by ChatGPT with a Delphi-developed expert prompt. Data analysis employed descriptive statistics and correlation analysis to explore the relationship between AI/IT skills and response accuracy. The study participants showed moderate IT proficiency but low AI proficiency. Interaction with ChatGPT regarding clinical signs of acute hepatic steatosis gravidarum revealed a preference for third-party questioning, resulting in only 21% accurate responses due to misinterpretation of medical acronyms. No correlation was found between AI response accuracy and the residents' self-assessed IT or AI skills, with most expressing dissatisfaction with their AI training. This study underlines the discrepancy between perceived and actual AI proficiency, highlighted by clinically inaccurate yet plausible AI responses - a manifestation of the 'stochastic parrot' phenomenon. These findings advocate for the inclusion of structured AI literacy programmes in medical education, focusing on prompt engineering. These academic skills are essential to exploit AI's potential in obstetrics and gynaecology. The ultimate aim is to optimize patient care in AI-augmented health care, and prevent misleading and unsafe knowledge acquisition

Examiner workload comparison:three structured oral examination formats for the European diploma in anaesthesiology and intensive care

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered transformations in academic medicine, rapidly adopting remote teaching and online assessments. Whilst virtual environments show promise in evaluating medical knowledge, their impact on examiner workload is unclear. This study explores examiner’s workload during different European Diploma in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Part 2 Structured Oral Examinations formats. We hypothesise that online exams result in lower examiner’s workload than traditional face-to-face methods. We also investigate workload structure and its correlation with examiner characteristics and marking performance. In 2023, examiner’s workload for three examination formats (face-to-face, hybrid, online) using the NASA TLX instrument was prospectively evaluated. The impact of examiner demographics, candidate scoring agreement, and examination scores on workload was analysed. The overall NASA TLX score from 215 workload measurements in 142 examiners was high at 59.61 ± 14.13. The online examination had a statistically higher workload (61.65 ± 12.84) than hybrid but not face-to-face. Primary contributors to workload were mental and temporal demands, and effort. Online exams were associated with elevated frustration. Male examiners and those spending more time on exam preparation experienced a higher workload. Multiple diploma specialties and familiarity with European Diploma in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care exams were protective against high workload. Perceived workload did not impact marking agreement or examination scores across all formats. Examiners experience high workload. Online exams are not systematically associated with decreased workload, likely due to frustration. Despite workload differences, no impact on examiner’s performance or examination scores was found. The hybrid examination mode, combining face-to-face and online, was associated with a minor but statistically significant workload reduction. This hybrid approach may offer a more balanced and efficient examination process while maintaining integrity, cost savings, and increased accessibility for candidates.</p

Examiner workload comparison:three structured oral examination formats for the European diploma in anaesthesiology and intensive care

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered transformations in academic medicine, rapidly adopting remote teaching and online assessments. Whilst virtual environments show promise in evaluating medical knowledge, their impact on examiner workload is unclear. This study explores examiner’s workload during different European Diploma in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Part 2 Structured Oral Examinations formats. We hypothesise that online exams result in lower examiner’s workload than traditional face-to-face methods. We also investigate workload structure and its correlation with examiner characteristics and marking performance. In 2023, examiner’s workload for three examination formats (face-to-face, hybrid, online) using the NASA TLX instrument was prospectively evaluated. The impact of examiner demographics, candidate scoring agreement, and examination scores on workload was analysed. The overall NASA TLX score from 215 workload measurements in 142 examiners was high at 59.61 ± 14.13. The online examination had a statistically higher workload (61.65 ± 12.84) than hybrid but not face-to-face. Primary contributors to workload were mental and temporal demands, and effort. Online exams were associated with elevated frustration. Male examiners and those spending more time on exam preparation experienced a higher workload. Multiple diploma specialties and familiarity with European Diploma in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care exams were protective against high workload. Perceived workload did not impact marking agreement or examination scores across all formats. Examiners experience high workload. Online exams are not systematically associated with decreased workload, likely due to frustration. Despite workload differences, no impact on examiner’s performance or examination scores was found. The hybrid examination mode, combining face-to-face and online, was associated with a minor but statistically significant workload reduction. This hybrid approach may offer a more balanced and efficient examination process while maintaining integrity, cost savings, and increased accessibility for candidates.</p

Anatomy

Abstract This chapter provides ten practice multiple-choice questions (MCQs) about anatomy along with answers, explanations, and references for further reading to increase your in-depth understanding. Anatomy of the cardiovascular, cardiac, and nervous system are of prime importance to anaesthetists, so these topics are commonly covered in the written examination. However, the anatomy of other areas of the body may also be the focus of a question if, for example, vascular access is required, or ultrasound is useful. As far as possible, these questions appear as they would on a Part I paper. However, there are some publisher-defined style differences that should not affect your understanding of the questions presented here. The main differences include certain spelling conventions, when and where abbreviations are explained and then used in a question, and the presence of Oxford commas, which are present throughout this book but used only for clarification on an examination paper.</jats:p