Observational studyFrontiers in public health2025
Generative AI's healthcare professional role creep: a cross-sectional evaluation of publicly accessible, customised health-related GPTs.
Observational study in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blocking the Reflection: Milestones and Hurdles for Digital Twins in Mental Health.Pharmacopsychiatry · 2026Review
- A Decade of Artificial Intelligence in Stroke Care (2015-2025): Trends, Clinical Translation, and the Precision Medicine Frontier-A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Engaging Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based chatbots in digital health: A systematic review.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- How generative AI reconfigure clinician-AI and clinician-patient relationships.Clinical and translational medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Generative Artificial Intelligence Safeguards Against the Creation of Images and Videos Harmful to Public Health.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is advancing rapidly; an important consideration is the public's increasing ability to customise foundational AI models to create publicly accessible applications tailored for specific tasks. This study aims to evaluate the accessibility and functionality descriptions of customised GPTs on the OpenAI GPT store that provide health-related information or assistance to patients and healthcare professionals. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of the OpenAI GPT store from September 2 to 6, 2024, to identify publicly accessible customised GPTs with health-related functions. We searched across general medicine, psychology, oncology, cardiology, and immunology applications. Identified GPTs were assessed for their name, description, intended audience, and usage. Regulatory status was checked across the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Union Medical Device Regulation (EU MDR), and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) databases. Results: A total of 1,055 customised, health-related GPTs targeting patients and healthcare professionals were identified, which had collectively been used in over 360,000 conversations. Of these, 587 were psychology-related, 247 were in general medicine, 105 in oncology, 52 in cardiology, 30 in immunology, and 34 in other health specialties. Notably, 624 of the identified GPTs included healthcare professional titles (e.g., doctor, nurse, psychiatrist, oncologist) in their names and/or descriptions, suggesting they were taking on such roles. None of the customised GPTs identified were FDA, EU MDR, or TGA-approved. Discussion: This study highlights the rapid emergence of publicly accessible, customised, health-related GPTs. The findings raise important questions about whether current AI medical device regulations are keeping pace with rapid technological advancements. The results also highlight the potential "role creep" in AI chatbots, where publicly accessible applications begin to perform - or claim to perform - functions traditionally reserved for licensed professionals, underscoring potential safety concerns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.