ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
ChatGPT Assisting Diagnosis of Neuro-ophthalmology Diseases Based on Case Reports.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of large language models in providing patient information about keratoconus and contact lenses.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the efficiency of large language models (LLMs) including ChatGPT to assist in diagnosing neuro-ophthalmic diseases based on case reports. Design: Prospective study. Subjects or Participants: We selected 22 different case reports of neuro-ophthalmic diseases from a publicly available online database. These cases included a wide range of chronic and acute diseases that are commonly seen by neuro-ophthalmic sub-specialists. Methods: We inserted the text from each case as a new prompt into both ChatGPT v3.5 and ChatGPT Plus v4.0 and asked for the most probable diagnosis. We then presented the exact information to two neuro-ophthalmologists and recorded their diagnoses followed by comparison to responses from both versions of ChatGPT. Main Outcome Measures: Diagnostic accuracy in terms of number of correctly diagnosed cases among diagnoses. Results: ChatGPT v3.5, ChatGPT Plus v4.0, and the two neuro-ophthalmologists were correct in 13 (59%), 18 (82%), 19 (86%), and 19 (86%) out of 22 cases, respectively. The agreement between the various diagnostic sources were as follows: ChatGPT v3.5 and ChatGPT Plus v4.0, 13 (59%); ChatGPT v3.5 and the first neuro-ophthalmologist, 12 (55%); ChatGPT v3.5 and the second neuro-ophthalmologist, 12 (55%); ChatGPT Plus v4.0 and the first neuro-ophthalmologist, 17 (77%); ChatGPT Plus v4.0 and the second neuro-ophthalmologist, 16 (73%); and first and second neuro-ophthalmologists 17 (17%). Conclusions: The accuracy of ChatGPT v3.5 and ChatGPT Plus v4.0 in diagnosing patients with neuro-ophthalmic diseases was 59% and 82%, respectively. With further development, ChatGPT Plus v4.0 may have potential to be used in clinical care settings to assist clinicians in providing quick, accurate diagnoses of patients in neuro-ophthalmology. The applicability of using LLMs like ChatGPT in clinical settings that lack access to subspeciality trained neuro-ophthalmologists deserves further research.
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.