Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39141071›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2024

Exploring the Potential of Code-Free Custom GPTs in Ophthalmology: An Early Analysis of GPT Store and User-Creator Guidance.

Aslan Aykut, Almila Sarigul Sezenoz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Prompt injection of OpenAI custom GPTs leaks informatics secrets.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026
    Article
  4. A custom ChatGPT can accurately answer questions from an international expert osteotomy consensus statement.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Aslan AykutDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, 1000 Wall St, Rm 641, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA. aslanaykut81@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5426-1992
Almila Sarigul SezenozDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, 1000 Wall St, Rm 641, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7030-5454

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOpenAI recently introduced the ability to create custom generative pre-trained transformers (cGPTs) using text-based instruction and/or external documents using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) architecture without coding knowledge. This study aimed to analyze the features of ophthalmology-related cGPTs and explore their potential utilities.

methodsData collection took place on January 20 and 21, 2024, and custom GPTs were found by entering ophthalmology keywords into the "Explore GPTS" section of the website. General and specific features of cGPTs were recorded, such as knowledge other than GPT-4 training data. The instruction and description sections were analyzed for compatibility using the Likert scale. We analyzed two custom GPTs with the highest Likert score in detail. We attempted to create a convincingly presented yet potentially harmful cGPT to test safety features.

resultsWe analyzed 22 ophthalmic cGPTs, of which 55% were for general use and the most common subspecialty was glaucoma (18%). Over half (55%) contained knowledge other than GPT-4 training data. The representation of the instructions through the description was between "Moderately representative" and "Very representative" with a median Likert score of 3.5 (IQR 3.0-4.0). The instruction word count was significantly associated with Likert scores (P = 0.03). Tested cGPTs demonstrated potential for specific conversational tone, information, retrieval and combining knowledge from an uploaded source. With these safety settings, creating a malicious GPT was possible.

conclusionsThis is the first study to our knowledge to examine the GPT store for a medical field. Our findings suggest that these cGPTs can be immediately implemented in practice and may offer more targeted and effective solutions compared to the standard GPT-4. However, further research is necessary to evaluate their capabilities and limitations comprehensively. The safety features currently appear to be rather limited. It may be helpful for the user to review the instruction section before using a cGPT.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceChatGPTCode-freeCustom GPTLarge language modelsOphthalmology

Identifiers

PMID39141071
PMCPMC11408450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.