Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38362238›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Patients with floaters: Answers from virtual assistants and large language models.

Gloria Wu, Weichen Zhao, Adrial Wong, David A Lee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gloria WuDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0050-2401
Weichen ZhaoUniversity of California, Davis, Davis, California, USA.
Adrial WongUniversity of California, Davis, Davis, California, USA.
David A LeeUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, McGovern Medical School, Houston, Texas, USA.
University of California, Davis · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: "Floaters," a common complaint among patients of all ages, was used as a query term because it affects 30% of all people searching for eye care. The American Academy of Ophthalmology website's "floaters" section was used as a source for questions and answers (www.aao.org). Floaters is a visual obstruction that moves with the movement of the eye. They can be associated with retinal detachment, which can lead to vision loss. With the advent of large language model (LLM) chatbots ChatGPT, Bard versus virtual assistants (VA), Google Assistant, and Alexa, we analyzed their responses to "floaters." Methods: Using AAO.org, "Public & Patients," and its related subsection, "EyeHealth A-Z": Floaters and Flashes link, we asked four questions: (1) What are floaters? (2) What are flashes? (3) Flashes and Migraines? (4) Floaters and Flashes Treatment? to ChatGPT, Bard, Google Assistant, and Alexa. The American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) keywords were identified if they were highlighted. The "Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level" formula approved by the U.S. Department of Education, was used to evaluate the reading comprehension level for the responses. Results: Of the chatbots and virtual assistants, Google Assistant is the only one that uses the term "ophthalmologist." There is no mention of the urgency or emergency nature of floaters. AAO.org shows a lower reading level vs the LLMs and VA ( Conclusion: Currently, ChatGPT, Bard, Google Assistant, and Alexa are similar. Factual information is present but all miss the urgency of the diagnosis of a retinal detachment. Translational relevance: Both the LLM and virtual assistants are free and our patients will use them to obtain "floaters" information. There may be errors of omission with ChatGPT and a lack of urgency to seek a physician's care.

Indexed as

AlexaAmerican Academy of OphthalmologyBardChatGPTfloatersGoogle Assistanthealth literacyLLMvirtual assistants

Identifiers

PMID38362238
PMCPMC10868475
OpenAlexW4391852215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.