ArticleJPRAS open2024
Assessing the accuracy of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of orbital fractures: Is this the future of surgical decision-making?
Article in JPRAS open, 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.
- Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and prognosis of ocular trauma: a systematic review.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- Epidemiological Overview and Traits into Disorders of the Orbital Walls in North-Eastern Romania.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orbital fractures are common, but their management remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to assess the accuracy of an advanced artificial intelligence (AI) model, ChatGPT-4, in surgical decision-making, with a focus on orbital fracture diagnosis and management. A retrospective observational analysis was conducted by involving a sample of 30 orbital fracture cases diagnosed and managed at the Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland. The process involved creating patient vignettes from anonymised medical records and presenting them to ChatGPT-4 in three stages: initial diagnosis, refinement with radiological reports and surgical intervention decisions. The performance of ChatGPT-4 in providing the appropriate surgical strategy was evaluated through measures of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, with the actual management used as the benchmark for accuracy. The AI model could correctly diagnose the fracture in 100 % of the cases. It demonstrated a specificity of 100 % and sensitivity of 57 % for treatment recommendation, indicating its effectiveness in recognising patients who truly required an intervention; however, it demonstrated a moderate performance in correctly identifying cases that were better suited for conservative treatment. Cohen's Kappa statistic for interrater reliability of the choice of treatment was 0.44, indicating a weak level of agreement between ChatGPT and the physician's choice of treatment. The study demonstrates that AI tools such as ChatGPT-4 can offer a high degree of accuracy in diagnosing orbital fractures and recognising patients requiring surgical intervention; however, it performed less satisfactorily in correctly identifying patients who were better suited for non-surgical treatment.
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.