The exact text we saved

This is the version exactly as it was saved, character for character. The SHA-256 hash below is a 64-character code worked out from that text. Run the same text through SHA-256 and you get the same code; change a single letter and the code comes out completely different. Each version also stores the previous version’s hash, which chains them together so no version can be swapped out quietly.

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-2845
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-11-12T17:34:09.025693Z
status: published
lens: g_space
sector: education
headline: 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
dek: 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…
gain_title: 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).
problem_title: (none)
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: 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).
gain_evidence: the exam performances of ChatGPT 4.0 are better than the students (OR = 2.589, 95 % CI (1.046-6.409)
problem_reading: (none)
problem_evidence: (none)
quick_read: A meta-analysis of studies that pitted students against ChatGPT on health sciences exams found the answer depends on the version. Students beat ChatGPT 3.5 (OR = 3.173, 95% CI 1.132-8.869), while ChatGPT 4.0 beat the students (OR = 2.589, 95% CI 1.046-6.409).

The authors searched Web of Science for articles up to May 2024. They also ran a co-citation analysis of the references in the included studies, to see how the studies relate to the work they cite.

The result matters for educators weighing ChatGPT as a study aid in health sciences. The wide confidence intervals, with lower bounds just above 1, mean the size of the gap is uncertain, and the GPT-4.0 comparison rests on only four studies.
limitation: 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.
tag: Evidence-backed gain
key_points: Students outperformed ChatGPT 3.5 on health sciences exams (OR = 3.173, 95% CI 1.132-8.869). | ChatGPT 4.0 outperformed students on health sciences exams (OR = 2.589, 95% CI 1.046-6.409). | The authors searched Web of Science for articles published until May 2024. | Co-citation analysis of the ChatGPT 3.5 studies' references produced three clusters. | For the four ChatGPT 4.0 studies, co-citation analysis produced two clusters; the most cited works (Kung et al., Aidan et al., Hopkins et al.) intersect in one cluster. | The authors say combining meta-analysis with co-citation analysis adds depth and scope, and that their results agree with the existing literature.
rundown: The study included only research that compared students' exam performance directly with ChatGPT 3.5 or 4.0 in health sciences. The pooled results run in opposite directions: students scored better than the older model, but the newer model scored better than students.

Co-citation analysis examined the references of the included studies. For ChatGPT 3.5 it identified three clusters. For ChatGPT 4.0 it identified two clusters across the references of four studies, with Kung et al., Aidan et al. and Hopkins et al. intersecting in one.

The authors conclude that the findings agree with the literature for both versions and that using ChatGPT as an educational assistant in health sciences is increasing day by day.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | Heliyon | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e41925 | 2025-01-25
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

SHA-256 hash

c4b332d0445aeef84eff7de5e5559d043a4e93a9227ed612938a3644d5d36077

Previous version’s hash

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000