ArticleJACC. Advances2026
A No-Code, Guideline-Based Custom GPT Outperforms Cardiologists in Response Quality for Cardiac Amyloidosis.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac amyloidosis (CA) is increasingly recognized in clinical practice. Whether a guideline-based large language model can deliver clinician-level answer quality for CA remains unknown.
objectivesThis study aimed to develop a guideline-based custom generative pretrained transformer (GPT) (AmyloGPT) and evaluate whether its response quality matches or exceeds that of board-certified cardiologists for questions regarding CA.
methodsAmyloGPT was built in OpenAI's GPT Builder without programming, integrating the 2020 Japanese Circulation Society CA guidelines as its knowledge base. Ten nonspecialist physicians generated 71 unique clinical questions. Five board-certified cardiologist answerers drafted responses. In a prospective, blinded, comparative study, evaluators (10 nonspecialists and 3 board-certified cardiologists) assessed paired responses for preference (forced-choice) and response quality using five-point Likert scales.
resultsCompared with cardiologist answers, AmyloGPT was preferred in 81.1% (95% CI: 78.1%-83.8%) of evaluations by nonspecialist evaluators and 83.6% (95% CI: 78.6%-88.6%) of those by cardiologist evaluators (both P < 0.001). Among nonspecialists, AmyloGPT received higher median ratings for intent alignment and clinical usefulness (both P < 0.001). Among cardiologist evaluators, AmyloGPT received higher median ratings across all 5 quality dimensions: accuracy, consistency, validity, completeness, and absence of bias (all P < 0.001).
conclusionsA no-code, guideline-based custom GPT delivered superior response quality to that of cardiologists for CA questions. This approach allows clinicians without programming skills to build disease-specific large language models, potentially supporting equitable care where specialist access is limited. However, further studies are needed to evaluate potentially inaccurate outputs such as hallucinations.
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.