aceModerate evidence
Published recordEducationGood Space
More
Can ChatGPT be used as an education assistant in the field of health sciences? Examining with the integration of meta-analysis and co-citation analysis
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2845raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- c4b332d0445a…check it
Background: Meta-analysis studies are frequently included in the literature, but studies integrated with co-citation analysis are very few. There is no study that evaluates the success of ChatGPT in the field of health sciences, especially by integrating these two methods. Objective: This study aims to reveal whether ChatGPT can be used as an educational assistant by comparing the performance of students in exams in the field of health sciences with ChatGPT through the integration of meta-analysis and co-citatio…
The gain
A meta-analysis of studies comparing ChatGPT with students on health sciences exams found ChatGPT 4.0 performed better than students (OR = 2.589, 95% CI 1.046-6.409).
What this doesn’t fix
The ChatGPT 4.0 result is pooled from only four studies, and its confidence interval (1.046-6.409) is wide, so the size of the advantage over students is uncertain.
Sources
1 on file- Heliyondoi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e41925
What the review found when it combined the studies
These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.
Health sciences exam correct answers: ChatGPT 4.0 compared with students
Odds ratio 2.589 (95% CI 1.046 to 6.409)
search to May 2024
The review’s own words
Specifically, students correctly answered 1214 out of 2123 questions, while ChatGPT 4.0 answered 1665 questions correctly (OR = 2.589, 95 % CI [1.046–6.409]).
Health sciences exam correct answers: students compared with ChatGPT 3.5
Odds ratio 3.173 (95% CI 1.132 to 8.869)
search to May 2024
The review’s own words
Specifically, out of a total of 924 questions, students answered 716 correctly, while ChatGPT 3.5 correctly answered 590 questions (OR = 3.173, 95 % CI [1.132–8.869]).
Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results
Cite this record
v1Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2845, v1: “Can ChatGPT be used as an education assistant in the field of health sciences? Examining with the integration of meta-analysis and co-citation analysis.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2845 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 c4b332d0445aeef8…
Change history
1 versionEvery change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.
Certified into the record
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page
Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2845 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.