Medical education with large language models in ophthalmology: custom instructions and enhanced retrieval capabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foundation models are the next generation of artificial intelligence that has the potential to provide novel use cases for healthcare. Large language models (LLMs), a type of foundation model, are capable of language comprehension and the ability to generate human-like text. Researchers and developers have been tuning LLMs to optimise their performance in specific tasks, such as medical challenge problems. Until recently, tuning required technical programming expertise, but the release of custom generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) by OpenAI has allowed users to tune their own GPTs with natural language. This has the potential to democratise access to high-quality bespoke LLMs globally. In this review, we provide an overview of LLMs, how they are tuned and how custom GPTs work. We provide three use cases of custom GPTs in ophthalmology to demonstrate the versatility and effectiveness of these tools. First, we present 'EyeTeacher', an educational aid that generates questions from clinical guidelines to facilitate learning. Second, we built 'EyeAssistant', a clinical support tool that is tuned with clinical guidelines to respond to various physician queries. Lastly, we design 'The GPT for GA', which offers clinicians a comprehensive summary of emerging management strategies for geographic atrophy by analysing peer-reviewed documents. The review underscores the significance of custom instructions and information retrieval in tuning GPTs for specific tasks in ophthalmology. We also discuss the evaluation of LLM responses and address critical aspects such as privacy and accountability in their clinical application. Finally, we discuss their potential in ophthalmic education and clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".