ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
A Pilot Study of a CustomGPT for the Royal College of Ophthalmologists Curriculum 2024.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) employ transformer architectures to generate contextually appropriate responses and are increasingly applied in medical education. To support implementation of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth) Ophthalmic Specialist Training (OST) Curriculum 2024, the Yorkshire & Humber School of Ophthalmology developed a CustomGPT trained exclusively on official RCOphth curriculum documents. This study evaluated its usability, effectiveness, and accuracy. Methods: A pilot study invited ophthalmology trainees (ST1-ST7, Fellows) and trainers (Consultants, Supervisors, Tutors, Programme Directors) to use the CustomGPT over a three-month period (April to June 2025). Quantitative feedback (Likert scales) assessed relevance, ease of use, and satisfaction, while qualitative feedback explored perceived value and limitations. Accuracy was evaluated by comparing responses from the CustomGPT and the RCOphth Training Committee (TC) Chair to ten authentic curriculum queries. Results: Twenty-eight participants (14 trainees, 14 trainers) completed the survey; only 21% were regular AI users. Mean scores were high for relevance (4.21/5), ease of use (4.38/5), and satisfaction (4.10/5), with 86% reporting time savings and 75% rating their likelihood of recommending the tool as 8/10 or higher. Qualitative data highlighted concise, accurate, and well-structured responses but noted occasional technical issues and rigid interpretation of complex queries. Comparative analysis showed strong alignment with the TC Chair, though the GPT sometimes demonstrated greater precision in referencing but less flexibility in interpretation. Conclusions: A curriculum-specific GPT can provide rapid, accurate guidance, reducing ambiguity and improving efficiency. When integrated into training platforms, such tools can enhance curriculum accessibility in postgraduate medical education.
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.