Yuri Cho

Beatriz Borges, Negar Foroutan, Deniz Bayazit et al.

AI assistants are being increasingly used by students enrolled in higher education institutions. While these tools provide opportunities for improved teaching and education, they also pose significant challenges for assessment and learning outcomes. We conceptualize these challenges through the lens of vulnerability, the potential for university assessments and learning outcomes to be impacted by student use of generative AI. We investigate the potential scale of this vulnerability by measuring the degree to which AI assistants can complete assessment questions in standard university-level STEM courses. Specifically, we compile a novel dataset of textual assessment questions from 50 courses at EPFL and evaluate whether two AI assistants, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adequately answer these questions. We use eight prompting strategies to produce responses and find that GPT-4 answers an average of 65.8% of questions correctly, and can even produce the correct answer across at least one prompting strategy for 85.1% of questions. When grouping courses in our dataset by degree program, these systems already pass non-project assessments of large numbers of core courses in various degree programs, posing risks to higher education accreditation that will be amplified as these models improve. Our results call for revising program-level assessment design in higher education in light of advances in generative AI.

Edward Kim, Yuri Cho, Jose Eduardo E. Lima et al.

Digital health interventions increasingly deliver home exercise programs via sensor-equipped devices such as smartphones, enabling remote monitoring of adherence and performance. However, current software is usually authored before clinical encounters as libraries of modules for broad impairment categories. At the point of care, clinicians can only choose from these modules and adjust a few parameters (for example, duration or repetitions). As a result, individual limitations, goals, and environmental constraints are often not reflected, limiting personalization and benefit. We propose a paradigm in which large language models (LLMs) act as constrained translators that convert clinicians' exercise prescriptions into intervention software. Clinicians remain the decision makers: they design exercises during the encounter, tailored to each patient's impairments, goals, and environment, and the LLM generates matching software. We conducted a prospective single-arm feasibility study with 20 licensed physical and occupational therapists who created 40 individualized upper extremity programs for a standardized patient; 100% of prescriptions were translated into executable software, compared with 55% under a representative template-based digital health intervention (p < 0.01). LLM-generated software correctly delivered 99.7% of instructions and monitored performance with 88.4% accuracy (95% confidence interval, 0.843-0.915). Overall, 90% of therapists judged the system safe for patient interaction and 75% expressed willingness to adopt it in practice. To our knowledge, this is the first prospective evaluation of clinician-directed intervention software generation with an LLM in health care, demonstrating feasibility and motivating larger trials in real patient populations.