ArticleEye (London, England)2025
The use of artificial intelligence based chat bots in ophthalmology triage.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Two AI Chatbots for Diagnosis and Providing Treatment Suggestions in Retinopathy of Prematurity: Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Assessing ChatGPT's Performance in Delineating Uveitis: An analysis of responses to real-world case presentations.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- ChatGPT's role in the rapidly evolving hematologic cancer landscape.Future science OA · 2025Article
- Performance of ChatGPT-4 Omni and Gemini 1.5 Pro on Ophthalmology-Related Questions in the Turkish Medical Specialty Exam.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate AI-based chat bots ability to accurately answer common patient's questions in the field of ophthalmology.
methodsAn experienced ophthalmologist curated a set of 20 representative questions and responses were sought from two AI generative models: OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Bard (Gemini Pro). Eight expert ophthalmologists from different sub-specialties assessed each response, blinded to the source, and ranked them by three metrics-accuracy, comprehensiveness, and clarity, on a 1-5 scale.
resultsFor accuracy, ChatGPT scored a median of 4.0, whereas Bard scored a median of 3.0. In terms of comprehensiveness, ChatGPT achieved a median score of 4.5, compared to Bard which scored a median of 3.0. Regarding clarity, ChatGPT maintained a higher score with a median of 5.0, compared to Bard's median score of 4.0. All comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.001).
conclusionAI-based chat bots can provide relatively accurate and clear responses for addressing common ophthalmological inquiries. ChatGPT surpassed Bard in all measured metrics. While these AI models exhibit promise, further research is indicated to improve their performance and allow them to be used as a reliable medical tool.
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.