Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39677217›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Evaluating ChatGPT's Diagnostic Accuracy in Detecting Fundus Images.

Ayushi Gupta, Hussein Al-Kazwini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors.

Ayushi GuptaOphthalmology, Royal Free Hospital, London, GBR.
Hussein Al-KazwiniOphthalmology, East Kent Hospitals University National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Canterbury, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Artificial intelligence is rapidly advancing in healthcare. Ophthalmology, with its reliance on imaging for diagnosis and management, has the potential to benefit from this technology. Deep learning models are currently used in image analysis in ophthalmology. ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA), a large language model, has recently expanded to include image analysis, creating new opportunities for diagnostic applications. While prior research shows potential in text-based diagnostics for ophthalmology, there is limited literature on AI's diagnostic accuracy in interpreting retinal images. Methods We selected 12 fundus images from key diseases identified by the Royal College of Ophthalmology curricula for medical students, foundation doctors, and trainees. Each image was presented to ChatGPT 4.0 using a standardised prompt to identify the most likely diagnosis. Responses were recorded, and the model's accuracy was assessed by comparing its diagnoses to the confirmed conditions. Results ChatGPT accurately diagnosed four out of 12 diseases (papilloedema, dry age-related macular degeneration (ARMD), glaucoma and vitreous haemorrhage) and provided one partially correct diagnosis (diabetic retinopathy). However, the model struggled with seven cases, including central retinal artery occlusion, central retinal vein occlusion, dry ARMD, rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, tractional retinal detachment, epiretinal membrane and macular hole. Conclusion ChatGPT demonstrates the potential for diagnosis of retinal conditions from fundus photography. However, it currently lacks the accuracy required for clinical application; the model often hallucinates when unsure, which has diagnostic implications. Further work is required to refine these models and expand their diagnostic potential.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencechatgptfundus photographylarge language modelophthalmologyretina

Identifiers

PMID39677217
PMCPMC11646154

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.