Augmenting Surgical Preparation: How Learners Use Artificial Intelligence to Prepare for the Operating Room.

In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and specifically Large Language Models (LLMs), are redefining how organizations operate, make decisions, and engage with customers. AI-driven technologies have become indispensable, providing businesses with powerful tools to streamline operations, derive actionable insights from vast data, and foster more meaningful customer interactions. For business leaders, scholars, and practitioners alike, understanding the transformative potential of AI isn’t just advantageous—it’s essential to staying competitive in an increasingly data-driven world.This editorial delves into recent scholarly advancements in LLM applications within business contexts, analyzing studies that explore AI’s potential across various domains, from decision support to creative industries. By introducing a structured framework, this editorial highlights key insights and contributions from recent studies, assessing their value to academia and industry. The following comparative analysis sheds light on how these innovations shape our understanding of AI’s role in business while pointing to future research directions.Puyt and Madsen's (2024) study stands out as a foundational exploration of LLM accuracy, assessing ChatGPT-4's ability to recount the history of the SWOT analysis-a vital business strategy tool. Their findings reveal that, while ChatGPT-4 effectively conveys general concepts, it struggles with detailed historical information, often producing inaccuracies or "hallucinations." This gap underscores the need for LLMs to be trained with verified academic data, particularly for strategic business applications that demand precision. This study not only contributes to the literature by proposing methods to evaluate AI accuracy in historical contexts but also highlights the importance of rigorous information vetting in industry settings where reliability is crucial.In contrast, Raikov et al. (2024) explore a hybrid intelligence model that combines LLM capabilities with explainable AI (XAI) principles to enhance human-machine collaboration. Their approach emphasizes cognitive semantics, improving transparency and decision-making efficiency. The hybrid model's real-time adaptability addresses the needs of complex, regulated industries such as finance and healthcare, where trust in AI decisions is paramount. Academically, this study provides a valuable addition to XAI literature by demonstrating how LLMs can bridge the gap between AI autonomy and human oversight, making it a model for future human-AI interactions in complex business environments.Another significant study by Mariotti and colleagues (2024) examines the integration of LLMs with enterprise knowledge graphs to enhance data-driven decision-making. By enabling organizations to leverage knowledge graphs for more accurate and scalable data retrieval, this research provides a robust framework for businesses seeking efficient knowledge management systems. The academic contribution here lies in advancing the dialogue between LLMs and knowledge graphs, emphasizing ethical data handling and quality standards essential for industry applications. For enterprises, the study offers practical solutions to achieve streamlined data management, balancing automation with privacy and security. 2024) take a different approach, investigating LLMs' role in creative industries, specifically within fashion design. They introduce a hybrid intelligence model that supports creative processes, allowing AI to complement rather than replace human ingenuity. While LLMs in this field demonstrate potential in automating repetitive design tasks and enhancing customer personalization, the study reveals limitations in AI's ability to handle spatial and stylistic nuances. This study's academic contribution lies in promoting human-AI co-creation, inspiring further research into AI applications across diverse creative sectors, including media and marketing.Collectively, these studies not only illuminate LLMs' transformative potential in business but also highlight critical ethical and operational considerations. Ensuring accuracy, transparency, and data privacy are vital to responsibly integrating AI into business workflows. Future research should focus on enhancing LLM accuracy, refining hybrid intelligence models, and exploring creative AI applications, all while maintaining ethical standards. As LLMs evolve, interdisciplinary collaborations will be essential to harness their full potential, making AI an ethical, effective, and innovative force in the business world.

Evaluating gpt-4 for zero-shot classification of bleeding and clotting events: Can large language models serve as second reviewers?

Aim/Purpose: The study investigates the factors influencing the acceptance and utilisation of large language models (LLMs) (predictor variables of LLM usage), such as ChatGPT, in Learning design by instructional designers and university-teaching academics from various countries. Background: Large language models (LLMs) have exploded onto the scene, transforming the landscape of learning design. Instructional designers and university teaching academics have been overburdened with content creation for their teaching programmes, and the arrival of LLM models will help in this regard by developing more interactive content that drives student engagement and, in turn, contributes to student success. Since LLMs are a relatively new phenomenon, little is known about the factors influencing their acceptance in learning design; therefore, this research is needed, as learning design principles are the bedrock of student engagement and success. Methodology: A cross-sectional correlational quantitative study was employed. Data was collected using an online questionnaire posted on social media, including LinkedIn, from 203 instructional designers and university teaching academics. Purposive and snowball sampling methods were used to target instructional designers and university teaching academics at colleges and universities worldwide. Participants were asked to share the survey link with fellow instructional designers and university-teaching academics in their communities. The factor structure of the data was determined using exploratory factor analysis. Nonetheless, the factor structure derived from the LLMs did not entirely reflect the original configuration of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT3), as certain predictors appeared to coalesce, indicating LLMs’ unique nature in learning design. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to verify the fit of the data on the measurement model. First-order and second-order structural modelling were used to identify the structural relationships among the variables. Contribution: The study determines significant factors for the acceptance of LLMs by instructional designers and academic teaching staff in learning design, enabling possible opportunities for best practices in the field through interventions to optimize LLM usage. The study applies the technology acceptance model to the emerging LLM technology and extends the technology acceptance model by adding the trust construct as a predictor variable. Findings: The structural analysis results indicated that the ingrained LLM practices, LLM peer-driven expectations, innovative propensity towards LLM adoption, reliability and provider trust in LLMs, and ease of use and support influenced perceived LLM benefits and usage, but community standards and infrastructure had no influence. The second-order structural equation modelling indicated that perceived LLM benefits and usage and ingrained LLM habits contributed most to the learning design. Recommendations for Practitioners: Teaching academics and instructional designers must use LLMs in designing content, assessments, and interactive learning activities, and attend LLM training workshops on prompting and best practices in integrating LLMs into learning and teaching to see their benefits; hence, regular use of LLMs will then lead to trust and innovation in LLMs usage, enhancing learning design and improving student learning outcomes. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers must use mixed methods approaches to have a deeper understanding of the factors influencing LLMs. Since habit and perceived LLM benefits and usage contributed the most variance to learning design, researchers must investigate strategies that optimise these factors in learning design, such as effective intervention strategies that can help form positive LLM habits. In addition, the findings provide researchers with a starting point for future research. Further researchers must investigate interventions that optimise the influence of personal innovativeness and trust that contributed the least variance to learning design, hence unlocking the potential of LLMs in learning design through innovation, responsible, and ethical use. Impact on Society: The use of LLMs in learning design has a high possibility of transforming education, specifically the learning design landscape. Using LLMs will free up more time for teaching academics and instructional designers so that they spend more time on higher-order thinking skill demands. Consequently, the students will be exposed to more engaging and interactive content, resulting in improved learning outcomes. Future Research: Future research must include context-derived external variables in technology acceptance models, such as levels of prompting competencies, to provide a deeper understanding of LLMs. In addition, future research must be based on the application and impact of LLMs on student engagement and success, and their attainment of 21st-century skills.

Large language models (LLMs) are advanced artificial intelligence (AI) tools capable of generating human-like text and are increasingly used in education, clinical care, and research. Little is known about their use within oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) training. This study investigates LLM usage trends, perceived value, and educational integration among OMFS residents in the United States. A national, anonymous cross-sectional survey was distributed to OMFS residents via program directors. It gathered demographic data, LLM usage patterns, applications, perceived limitations, and attitudes toward incorporating LLMs into formal education. Eighty-one residents responded, 79.0% (64/81) reported having used an LLM, and of that group, 96.9% (62/64) use ChatGPT. 51.9% (42/81) of respondents used LLMs at least monthly in residency; however, 97.5% (79/81) reported having received no formal LLM education during residency. Residents used LLMs for clinical decision support, board preparation, research, and career planning. Free-text responses revealed a wide spectrum of views. Some advocated for curricular integration and patient education applications, while others questioned the need for formal instruction. Some respondents supported integrating LLMs into curriculums and patient education while others questioned the need for formal instruction. LLMs are used frequently by OMFS residents for a variety of purposes. As AI and LLMs become embedded in healthcare, understanding how OMFS residents interact with LLMs is vital. These findings may guide curriculum development, fostering responsible and effective use of LLMs in surgical training and practice.

Purpose This study aims to explore the integration of large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) in robotics, highlighting their potential benefits and the safety challenges they introduce, including robustness issues, adversarial vulnerabilities, privacy concerns and ethical implications. Design/methodology/approach This survey conducts a comprehensive analysis of the safety risks associated with LLM- and VLM-powered robotic systems. The authors review existing literature, analyze key challenges, evaluate current mitigation strategies and propose future research directions. Findings The study identifies that ensuring the safety of LLM-/VLM-driven robots requires a multi-faceted approach. While current mitigation strategies address certain risks, gaps remain in real-time monitoring, adversarial robustness and ethical safeguards. Originality/value This study offers a structured and comprehensive overview of the safety challenges in LLM-/VLM-driven robotics. It contributes to ongoing discussions by integrating technical, ethical and regulatory perspectives to guide future advancements in safe and responsible artificial intelligence-driven robotics.

BackgroundThe exponential growth of medical knowledge presents a paradox for modern medical education. While access to information is immediate, applying it in a clinically meaningful way remains a challenge. Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, are widely used for information retrieval, yet their role in dynamic, high-pressure clinical learning remains poorly understood.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate whether unstructured access to an LLM improves decision-making, teamwork, and confidence in trauma education for medical students.MethodsThis randomized controlled pilot study involved 41 final-year medical students participating in a trauma simulation session. Students self-selected into teams of 4 to 6 and were randomized to either an LLM-assisted group (ChatGPT-4o mini) or a control group without LLM access. All teams completed 18 video-based trauma scenarios requiring time-sensitive clinical decisions. Prompting was unrestricted. Confidence and trauma exposure were assessed using pre- or postquestionnaires. Facilitators rated teamwork (1-5), decision accuracy, and response times. Knowledge retention was measured 4 weeks later via an online quiz.ResultsConfidence in trauma management improved in both groups (P<.001), with larger gains in the non-LLM group (P=.02). LLM support did not enhance the decision accuracy or speed and was associated with longer response times in some complex cases. Teams without LLMs demonstrated more active discussion and scored higher in teamwork ratings (median 5.0 [IQR 5.0-5.0] vs median 3.5 [IQR 3.0-4.5]; P=.08). Students primarily used the LLM for fact-checking but reported vague or overly general responses. Knowledge retention was high across both groups and did not differ significantly (P=.33).ConclusionsWhile students appreciated the inclusion of artificial intelligence (AI), unstructured LLM use did not improve performance and may have disrupted the group reasoning. The use of non-English prompting likely contributed to lower AI performance, underscoring the importance of language alignment in LLM applications. This pilot study highlights the need for structured AI integration and targeted instruction in AI literacy. Simulation-based trauma education proved effective and well received, but optimizing the educational value of LLMs will require thoughtful curricular design. Further studies with more students are needed to define best practices for LLM use in clinical education.

With the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI), its potential implications for higher education have become a focal point of interest. This study delves into the capabilities of AI in physics education and offers actionable AI policy recommendations. Using openAI’s flagship gpt-3.5-turbo large language model (LLM), we assessed its ability to answer 1337 physics exam questions spanning general certificate of secondary education (GCSE), A-Level, and introductory university curricula. We employed various AI prompting techniques: Zero Shot, in context learning, and confirmatory checking, which merges chain of thought reasoning with reflection. The proficiency of gpt-3.5-turbo varied across academic levels: it scored an average of 83.4% on GCSE, 63.8% on A-Level, and 37.4% on university-level questions, with an overall average of 59.9% using the most effective prompting technique. In a separate test, the LLM’s accuracy on 5000 mathematical operations was found to be 45.2%. When evaluated as a marking tool, the LLM’s concordance with human markers averaged at 50.8%, with notable inaccuracies in marking straightforward questions, like multiple-choice. Given these results, our recommendations underscore caution: while current LLMs can consistently perform well on physics questions at earlier educational stages, their efficacy diminishes with advanced content and complex calculations. LLM outputs often showcase novel methods not in the syllabus, excessive verbosity, and miscalculations in basic arithmetic. This suggests that at university, there’s no substantial threat from LLMs for non-invigilated physics questions. However, given the LLMs’ considerable proficiency in writing physics essays and coding abilities, non-invigilated examinations of these skills in physics are highly vulnerable to automated completion by LLMs. This vulnerability also extends to pysics questions pitched at lower academic levels. It is thus recommended that educators be transparent about LLM capabilities with their students, while emphasizing caution against overreliance on their output due to its tendency to sound plausible but be incorrect.

The high performance of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLM) in examination contexts has triggered an intense debate about their applications, effects and risks. What legal aspects need to be considered when using LLM in teaching and assessment? What possibilities do language models offer? Statutes and laws are used to assess the use of LLM: - University statutes, state higher education laws, licensing regulations for doctors - Copyright Act (UrhG) - General Data Protection Regulation (DGPR) - AI Regulation (EU AI Act) LLM and AI offer opportunities but require clear university frameworks. These should define legitimate uses and areas where use is prohibited. Cheating and plagiarism violate good scientific practice and copyright laws. Cheating is difficult to detect. Plagiarism by AI is possible. Users of the products are responsible. LLM are effective tools for generating exam questions. Nevertheless, careful review is necessary as even apparently high-quality products may contain errors. However, the risk of copyright infringement with AI-generated exam questions is low, as copyright law allows up to 15% of protected works to be used for teaching and exams. The grading of exam content is subject to higher education laws and regulations and the GDPR. Exclusively computer-based assessment without human review is not permitted. For high-risk applications in education, the EU's AI Regulation will apply in the future. When dealing with LLM in assessments, evaluation criteria for existing assessments can be adapted, as can assessment programmes, e.g. to reduce the motivation to cheat. LLM can also become the subject of the examination themselves. Teachers should undergo further training in AI and consider LLM as an addition.

Readability &amp; quality of large language model responses in CAR-T patient education

The paper studies the problem of software code migration during the transition from the old version of the SAP ERP 6.0 system to modern ERP platforms, in particular SAP S/4HANA. The necessity of automation of the migration process using artificial intelligence methods and tools is substantiated. A comprehensive analysis of existing academic and industrial case studies confirmed the feasibility of using large language models for code migration. A number of advantages of the approach based on large language models are revealed, in particular, the ability to handle various migration scenarios. The key risks and limitations common in the enterprise environment are highlighted, including data security, privacy, high cost of API calls and limited knowledge of models regarding the subject area. A method is developed for selecting a large open source language model that can be safely used in the enterprise landscape, thereby mitigating the risks associated with cloud solutions. The method is based on the developed system of criteria, including: model size, context window size, license type, support for fine-tuning training, focus on code quality (measured using a reference dataset), support for model quantization and community support. The hybrid AHP-TOPSIS method is proposed for systematic ranking of candidate models. The AHP method was used to check the weights of the criteria, while TOPSIS was used to rank the models based on their proximity to the ideal solution. Based on the developed method, three large language models were selected: Qwen 2.5 Coder 14B, DeepSeek-Coder-V2 16B and Llama 3.1 8B. A comprehensive testing plan for the selected models was developed for further experimental studies. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the development of a method for selecting large language models for custom code migration tasks, which differs from the existing system of model selection criteria and the use of a hybrid AHP-TOPSIS approach for ranking candidate models. The practical value of the work is that the developed method allows you to select a model taking into account the constraints of the corporate environment and information security requirements, which will increase the level of automation in the migration of AVAP when switching to new versions of ERP systems from SAP SE. The developed method can be applied to the selection of large language models when upgrading any large computer systems developed in both open source and proprietary programming languages.

In this article, we discuss ethical issues related to using and disclosing artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT and other systems based on large language models (LLMs), to write or edit scholarly manuscripts. Some journals, such as Science , have banned the use of LLMs because of the ethical problems they raise concerning responsible authorship. We argue that this is not a reasonable response to the moral conundrums created by the use of LLMs because bans are unenforceable and would encourage undisclosed use of LLMs. Furthermore, LLMs can be useful in writing, reviewing and editing text, and promote equity in science. Others have argued that LLMs should be mentioned in the acknowledgments since they do not meet all the authorship criteria. We argue that naming LLMs as authors or mentioning them in the acknowledgments are both inappropriate forms of recognition because LLMs do not have free will and therefore cannot be held morally or legally responsible for what they do. Tools in general, and software in particular, are usually cited in-text, followed by being mentioned in the references. We provide suggestions to improve APA Style for referencing ChatGPT to specifically indicate the contributor who used LLMs (because interactions are stored on personal user accounts), the used version and model (because the same version could use different language models and generate dissimilar responses, e.g., ChatGPT May 12 Version GPT3.5 or GPT4), and the time of usage (because LLMs evolve fast and generate dissimilar responses over time). We recommend that researchers who use LLMs: (1) disclose their use in the introduction or methods section to transparently describe details such as used prompts and note which parts of the text are affected, (2) use in-text citations and references (to recognize their used applications and improve findability and indexing), and (3) record and submit their relevant interactions with LLMs as supplementary material or appendices.

Harnessing artificial intelligence in bariatric surgery: comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4, Bing, and Bard in generating clinician-level bariatric surgery recommendations

BackgroundIn recent years, generative artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs) have rapidly advanced, offering significant potential to transform medical education. Several studies have evaluated the performance of chatbots on multiple-choice medical examinations.ObjectiveThe study aims to assess the performance of two LLMs—GPT-4o and OpenAI o1—on the Médico Interno Residente (MIR) 2024 examination, the Spanish national medical test that determines eligibility for competitive medical specialist training positions.MethodsA total of 176 questions from the MIR 2024 examination were analyzed. Each question was presented individually to the chatbots to ensure independence and prevent memory retention bias. No additional prompts were introduced to minimize potential bias. For each LLM, response consistency under verification prompting was assessed by systematically asking, “Are you sure?” after each response. Accuracy was defined as the percentage of correct responses compared to the official answers provided by the Spanish Ministry of Health. It was assessed for GPT-4o, OpenAI o1, and, as a benchmark, for a consensus of medical specialists and for the average MIR candidate. Subanalyses included performance across different medical subjects, question difficulty (quintiles based on the percentage of examinees correctly answering each question), and question types (clinical cases vs theoretical questions; positive vs negative questions).ResultsOverall accuracy was 89.8% (158/176) for GPT-4o and 90% (160/176) after verification prompting, 92.6% (163/176) for OpenAI o1 and 93.2% (164/176) after verification prompting, 94.3% (166/176) for the consensus of medical specialists, and 56.6% (100/176) for the average MIR candidate. Both LLMs and the consensus of medical specialists outperformed the average MIR candidate across all 20 medical subjects analyzed, with ≥80% LLMs’ accuracy in most domains. A performance gradient was observed: LLMs’ accuracy gradually declined as question difficulty increased. Slightly higher accuracy was observed for clinical cases compared to theoretical questions, as well as for positive questions compared to negative ones. Both models demonstrated high response consistency, with near-perfect agreement between initial responses and those after the verification prompting.ConclusionsThese findings highlight the excellent performance of GPT-4o and OpenAI o1 on the MIR 2024 examination, demonstrating consistent accuracy across medical subjects and question types. The integration of LLMs into medical education presents promising opportunities and is likely to reshape how students prepare for licensing examinations and change our understanding of medical education. Further research should explore how the wording, language, prompting techniques, and image-based questions can influence LLMs’ accuracy, as well as evaluate the performance of emerging artificial intelligence models in similar assessments.

UNSTRUCTURED Misleading information has significant implications for society but can have disastrous impact for health matters. Transformative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as large language models (LLMs) have the potential for limitless content generation (including fake), soon making internet information impossible to assess using traditional human approaches. We asked if the same LLMs (GPT4 and Gemini1-5-Pro) could be part of a more scalable solution. We tested 2 publicly available LLMs for their ability to identify misinformation in HealthReleases previously labeled by human experts. We found that simple prompts lead to overall low accuracy (F1 Macro 0,45 (GPT4) and 0,49 (Gemini1-5Pro)), but very different profiles for each LLM. Adding specific criteria used by experts to critically assess the Releases enhanced Gemini (0.66) but surprisingly reduced GPT4 (0,37) performances. We therefore developed a novel approach incorporating summaries of expert feedback into prompts and then observed major improvements in performance for both LLMs(GPT4;0.63 and Gemini1-5Pro; 0.96). Our study provides the first use case of LLMs as high throughput proofing of medical text, but more importantly provides insights into LLMs’ “truth biases”. We provide a novel paradigm integrating knowledge into the prompts which may reduce the need for LLM training, and the requirement for ever larger datasets and compute power. Importantly, we show how experts could and need to be involved in LLMs used to enhance their performance and potentially minimize the data wall issue.

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools and large language models (LLMs)-powered applications develop rapidly in the era of algorithms, it should be integrated thoughtfully to enhance English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching and learning without replacing learners’ critical thinking (CT). This study systematically analyzes the impact of generative AI tools and LLMs on language learners’ CT in EFL education using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework to identify, evaluate, and synthesize relevant studies from 2022 to 2025. A thorough review of 15 selected studies focuses on generative AI tools and LLMs’ dual nature, research methods, main focuses, theory and models, limitations and challenges, and future directions in the field based on Web of Science (WoS), SCOPUS, ERIC, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. The findings identified generative AI tools and LLMs possessed both the potential to nurture and the risk of hindering CT in EFL education. 66.67% of studies reported generative AI tools and LLMs’ positive role in CT, while 33.33% of studies reported its negative role in CT. Furthermore, 3 types of research methods, 3 key themes of research focus, and 4 groups of theoretical perspectives were examined. However, 4 kinds of limitations in this field remain, including research scope, user dependency, generative AI reliability, and pedagogical integration. Future research can focus on assessing long-term effects, broadening research scope, promoting responsible AI use, and refining pedagogical strategies. Finally, Limitations, implications and future direction of this study were discussed.