ArticleCornea2024
Accuracy and Completeness of Large Language Models About Antibody-Drug Conjugates and Associated Ocular Adverse Effects.
Article in Cornea, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating Large Language Models in Ophthalmology: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Large Language Models in Ophthalmology: A Bibliographic Analysis.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy and completeness of 3 large language models (LLMs) to generate information about antibody-drug conjugate (ADC)-associated ocular toxicities.
methodsThere were 22 questions about ADCs, tisotumab vedotin, and mirvetuximab soravtansine that were developed and input into ChatGPT 4.0, Bard, and LLaMa. Answers were rated by 4 ocular toxicity experts using standardized 6-point Likert scales on accuracy and completeness. ANOVA tests were conducted for comparison between the 3 subgroups, followed by pairwise t -tests. Interrater variability was assessed with Fleiss kappa tests.
resultsThe mean accuracy score was 4.62 (SD 0.89) for ChatGPT, 4.77 (SD 0.90) for Bard, and 4.41 (SD 1.09) for LLaMA. Both ChatGPT ( P = 0.03) and Bard ( P = 0.003) scored significantly better for accuracy when compared with LLaMA. The mean completeness score was 4.43 (SD 0.91) for ChatGPT, 4.57 (SD 0.93) for Bard, and 4.42 (SD 0.99) for LLaMA. There were no significant differences in completeness scores between groups. Fleiss kappa assessment for interrater variability was good (0.74) for accuracy and fair (0.31) for completeness.
conclusionsAll 3 LLMs had relatively high accuracy and completeness ratings, showing LLMs are able to provide sufficient answers for niche topics of ophthalmology. Our results indicate that ChatGPT and Bard may be slightly better at providing more accurate answers than LLaMA. As further research and treatment plans are developed for ADC-associated ocular toxicities, these LLMs should be reassessed to see if they provide complete and accurate answers that remain in line with current medical knowledge.
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.