Medicine

General Guidance

As part of your self-directed learning, you draw on multiple sources of information including textbooks, journal literature, library databases, question banks, lecture notes, etc.  AI is another assistive tool for your self-directed learning. 

As with all your learning, critical appraisal skills are necessary when gathering information.  However or wherever you find your information, you must evaluate it, verify it with additional sources, put the information into context, and understand its relevance in the growing body of acquired knowledge.

With that in mind, browse the various guidance found below:

Be cognizant of the following challenges when using AI for learning:

Verify that the information and sources are accurate

• Check that citations are accurate
• Verify the content output with other credible sources
• If there are no citations provided with the output, consider using a different AI tool

Additionally, to evaluate the output and the source citations provided by the generative AI tool, use the criteria below.  As you do, remember:

• Each criterion should be considered in the context of your topic or information need. For example, currency changes if you are working on a current event vs. a historical topic.
• Weigh all five criteria when making your decision. For example, the information may appear accurate, but if the authority is suspect you may want to find a more authoritative site for your information.
• When in doubt about a source, talk about it with your professor or a librarian.

Criteria to consider:

1. Currency: When was the information published or last updated? Is it current enough for your topic?
2. Relevance: Is this the type of information you need (ex. a research study or scholarly article)? Is it related to your topic? Is it detailed enough to help you answer questions on your topic?
3. Authority: Who is the author or creator of the information (can be an individual or an organization)? Are they an expert on your topic? Has the source been peer reviewed? Who is the publisher? Are they reputable?
4. Accuracy: Is the information true? What information does the author cite or refer to?  Is this a research study with methods you can follow? Can you find this information anywhere else? Can you find evidence to back it up from another resource? Are studies mentioned but not cited (this would be something to check on)? Can you locate those studies?
5. Purpose/perspective: What is the purpose of the information? Was it written to sell something or to convince you of something? Is this fact or opinion based? Is it unfairly biased?

Source: University of Texas Libraries. (2023, July 10). Evaluate Sources: Evaluation Criteria. Retrieved June 19, 2024 from https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/c.php?g=539372&p=6876271

A prompt is an input to an AI tool. For research AI tools, the prompt is usually a question, request, or topic.  Writing good prompts will facilitate good outputs from the AI tool.

Here is some guidance:

CLEAR: Framework for Prompting - this framework provides a standard method for composing effective queries in academic settings:

1. Concise: brevity and clarity in prompts - be specific
2. Logical: structured and coherent prompts - use a logical flow and order
3. Explicit: clear output specifications - give precise instructions on your desired output format, content, and/or scope
4. Adaptive: flexibility and customization in prompts - experiment with various prompt formulations and phrasing in an iterative process
5. Reflective: continuous evaluation and improvement of prompts - adjust and improve your prompt by evaluating the previous responses

For more detailed explanations and examples, read the full article: Lo LS. The CLEAR path: a framework for enhancing information literacy through prompt engineering.” Journal of academic librarianship. 2023; 49(4). http://ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102720

Go to your UT LinkedIn account and search in the Learning section for "How to Research and Write Using Generative AI Tools: Meet your AI Creative Collaborator"[Video].

OpenAI Developer Forum

• A Guide to Crafting Effective Prompts for Diverse Applications. OpenAI Developer Forum. November 2023. https://community.openai.com/t/a-guide-to-crafting-effective-prompts-for-diverse-applications/493914 
• The Art of AI Prompt Crafting: A Comprehensive Guide for Enthusiasts. (November 2023) - https://community.openai.com/t/the-art-of-ai-prompt-crafting-a-comprehensive-guide-for-enthusiasts/495144

LearnPrompting. Prompt Engineering Guide. 2024. https://learnprompting.org/docs/intro

More examples may be found in the following:

​​​​​​General Rules

1. Be transparent about your use of AI.  Report what tool you used, for what purpose you used it, and details about the prompt and output. 
2. Be sure to follow instructions and restrictions, if provided by faculty, regarding your use of AI in their class and their expectations regarding citing it.
3. If writing a manuscript for a journal, follow the author guidelines provided by the publisher about using and citing AI.
4. It is your responsibility to confirm that the output from the AI tool is accurate.  Confirm the output with other sources like textbooks, scholarly journal articles, or high quality resources from the web (such as .org, .edu, or .gov websites) that pass the CRAAP test.

What information might you want to save when you use an AI tool?

• the name of the tool, its version, and year of the version (if you can find that info!)
• the date you used the AI tool 
• the actual prompt(s) you used
• the generated response/output of your prompt(s) (some tools make it easy to download or save the full "conversation;" but if not, just copy and paste the text)
• indicate the sources of the information on which the AI tool based its response (good AI tools should provide their sources!) 

Here is guidance provided by several major citation styles and publishers:

• APA Style - https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/how-to-cite-chatgpt
• Chicago Manual of Style - https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Documentation/faq0422.html 
• MLA (Modern Language Association) Style - https://style.mla.org/citing-generative-ai/
• AMA (American Medical Association)
  • JAMA editorial "Reporting Use of AI in Research and Scholarly Publication - JAMA Network Guidance" gives guidance about the use and reporting of AI, mainly focused on publication, but can inform your use and citing of AI in your school work. 
  • MD Anderson, Research Medical Library. Citing Your Work: AI Tools: AMA Style Rules. https://mdanderson.libguides.com/cite/ai

Here are examples of how you could structure your citation in-text and on the reference list based on these styles:

Example 1 (APA style)

In text:

When prompted with "What are the common side effects of Erlotinib to treat lung cancer in an adult patient?", Microsoft CoPilot (2023) generated the following six conditions: rash, diarrhea, lost of appetite, weakness, cough, and shortness of breath.

Reference:

Microsoft. Microsoft CoPilot ( March 2023 version) [Large language model].  https://copilot.microsoft.com/

Example 2 (MLA style)

In text:

The common side effects of Erlotinib are: rash, skin changes, nail changes, diarrhea, fatigue, loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, cough, trouble breathing, and weakness. ("What are the common side effects").

Reference:

"What are the common side effects of Erlotinib to treat lung cancer in an adult patient?" prompt. Perplexity, freemium version, Perplexity AI Inc., 2022. https://www.perplexity.ai/

Example 3 (American Medical Association)

Or, you can just use the AI tool as the conduit for finding the information, then go to the sources that are cited in the output, read those sources, and cite them. Describe in your work how you used the AI tool in your learning or research process.  

In text:

When researching adult lung cancer on July 20, 2024, the AI tool Elicit (2022 model, Ought) was prompted with the question "What is the typical life expectancy of an adult lung cancer patient who is being treated with Erlotinib?" Studies ^{1, 2, 3} provided in the AI-generated output reported a median survival time of 6.7 months, 8.4 months, and 10.9 months. These studies' participants were a median age, respectively, of . . . . [and so on].  Additionally, a review article ⁴ analyzed the results of studies that looked at Erlotinib's effect on the primary outcome of survival for advanced, recurrent, and relapsed non-small cell lung cancer.  The authors concluded that . . . 

References:

1. Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Diuleanu T, et al. Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(2):123-132. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa050753

2. Pérez-Soler R, Chachoua A, Hammond LA, et al. Determinants of tumor response and survival with erlotinib in patients with non--small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(16):3238-47. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.11.057

3. Jackman DM, Yeap BY, Lindeman NI, et al.. Phase II clinical trial of chemotherapy-naive patients > or = 70 years of age treated with erlotinib for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(7):760-6. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.07.5754

4. Feld R, Sridhar SS, Shepherd FA, Mackay JA, Evans WK; Lung Cancer Disease Site Group of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-based Care. Use of the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review. J Thorac Oncol. 2006 M;1(4):367-76.