Agentic education · Learning science

Actionable companion · Self-regulation & metacognition

Learning with agency: Learning the Randleman Criteria in Refractive Surgery: Utilizing ChatGPT-3.5 Versus Internet Search Engine

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not claims or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.

Read original paperSearch paper agentCC BY 4.0

Evidence and context

Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Higher education. Verify the participant population and task before transferring the findings.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Introduction Large language models such as OpenAI's (San Francisco, CA) ChatGPT-3.5 hold immense potential to augment self-directed learning in medicine, but concerns have risen regarding its accuracy in specialized fields. This study compares ChatGPT-3.5 with an internet search engine in their ability to define the Randleman criteria and its five parameters within a self-directed learning environment. Methods Twenty-three medical students gathered information on the Randleman criteria. Each student was allocated 10 minutes to interact with ChatGPT-3.5, followed by 10 minutes to search the internet independently. Each ChatGPT-3.5 conversation, student summary, and internet reference were subsequently analyzed for accuracy, efficiency, and reliability. Results ChatGPT-3.5 provided the correct definition for 26.1% of students (6/23, 95% CI: 12.3% to 46.8%), while an independent internet search resulted in sources containing the correct definition for 100% of students (23/23, 95% CI: 87.5% to 100%, p = 0.0001). ChatGPT-3.5 incorrectly identified the Randleman criteria as a corneal ectasia staging system for 17.4% of students (4/23), fabricated a “Randleman syndrome” for 4.3% of students (1/23), and gave no definition for 52.2% of students (12/23). When a definition was given (47.8%, 11/23), a median of two of the five correct parameters was provided along with a median of two additional falsified parameters. Conclusion Internet search engine outperformed ChatGPT-3.5 in providing accurate and reliable information on the Randleman criteria. ChatGPT-3.5 gave false information, required excessive prompting, and propagated misunderstandings. Learners should exercise discernment when using ChatGPT-3.5. Future initiatives should evaluate the implementation of prompt engineering and updated large-language models.

What kind of evidence is this?

Supporting AI learning science · Design requires full-text appraisal

Stage: Higher education. Screening labels describe reported context and study-design language. They are not a risk-of-bias rating or proof of effectiveness for an age band.

Study methods · source passage

Twenty-three medical students participated in the study between May 2023 and December 2023. Participation was restricted to currently enrolled medical students with an expressed interest in ophthalmology and no prior knowledge of the Randleman criteria. Each author collaborated with the Hoopes Vision Research Center and recruited eligible participants from their respective institutions.

Design the system before the pilot

Use this study to inform a learning mechanism or implementation question. It is not direct evidence that autonomous agents improve learning. Keep the proposed agent behavior separate from what the source actually tested.

  • Use plan–attempt–check–reflect prompts and compare confidence with actual performance. Keep learner choice and reflection visible.

A 90-day district pilot

  1. Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
  2. Days 16–30 · Design. Choose one disciplinary task. Require a first attempt, a documented AI consultation, a critique of the output and an independent explanation. Align the comparison group and scoring rubric with the same objective. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
  3. Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
  4. Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning and accuracy on a new task without AI. Distinguish model examination scores, student perceptions and actual learner gains; only the last directly tests educational benefit. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Jared J Tuttle; Majid Moshirfar; James Garcia; Amal W Altaf; Soroush Omidvarnia; Phillip C Hoopes. Learning the Randleman Criteria in Refractive Surgery: Utilizing ChatGPT-3.5 Versus Internet Search Engine. Cureus (2024-07-17). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.64768

Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.