Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39019566›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2024

Development and evaluation of a large language model of ophthalmology in Chinese.

Ce Zheng, Hongfei Ye, Jinming Guo, Junrui Yang, Ping Fei, Yuanzhi Yuan, Danqing Huang, Yuqiang Huang, Jie Peng, Xiaoling Xie and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

14 authors.

Ce Zheng *Ophthalmology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Hongfei Ye *Ophthalmology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7966-2466
Jinming GuoJoint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Junrui YangOphthalmology, The 74th Army Group Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Ping FeiOphthalmology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7276-4630
Yuanzhi YuanOphthalmology, Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Danqing HuangDiscipline Inspection & Supervision Office, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yuqiang HuangJoint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Jie PengOpthalmology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Xiaoling XieJoint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shantou, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0009-0002-3255-0341
Meng XieOphthalmology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0009-0009-3071-3101
Peiquan ZhaoOphthalmology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5092-9550
Li Chen *Ophthalmology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China zmz0754@126.com chenree@163.com.
Mingzhi Zhang *Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shantou, Guangdong, China zmz0754@126.com chenree@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have considerable implications for various medical applications. However, ChatGPT's training primarily draws from English-centric internet data and is not tailored explicitly to the medical domain. Thus, an ophthalmic LLM in Chinese is clinically essential for both healthcare providers and patients in mainland China.

methodsWe developed an LLM of ophthalmology (MOPH) using Chinese corpora and evaluated its performance in three clinical scenarios: ophthalmic board exams in Chinese, answering evidence-based medicine-oriented ophthalmic questions and diagnostic accuracy for clinical vignettes. Additionally, we compared MOPH's performance to that of human doctors.

resultsIn the ophthalmic exam, MOPH's average score closely aligned with the mean score of trainees (64.7 (range 62-68) vs 66.2 (range 50-92), p=0.817), but achieving a score above 60 in all seven mock exams. In answering ophthalmic questions, MOPH demonstrated an adherence of 83.3% (25/30) of responses following Chinese guidelines (Likert scale 4-5). Only 6.7% (2/30, Likert scale 1-2) and 10% (3/30, Likert scale 3) of responses were rated as 'poor or very poor' or 'potentially misinterpretable inaccuracies' by reviewers. In diagnostic accuracy, although the rate of correct diagnosis by ophthalmologists was superior to that by MOPH (96.1% vs 81.1%, p>0.05), the difference was not statistically significant.

conclusionThis study demonstrated the promising performance of MOPH, a Chinese-specific ophthalmic LLM, in diverse clinical scenarios. MOPH has potential real-world applications in Chinese-language ophthalmology settings.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceLanguageOphthalmologyChinaEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, GraduateHumansMedical EducationPublic health

Identifiers

PMID39019566
PMCPMC11503135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.