Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39829624›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2025

Assessing the possibility of using large language models in ocular surface diseases.

Qian Ling, Zi-Song Xu, Yan-Mei Zeng, Qi Hong, Xian-Zhe Qian, Jin-Yu Hu, Chong-Gang Pei, Hong Wei, Jie Zou, Cheng Chen and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 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. Review
  9. 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.

Qian LingDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Zi-Song XuDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Yan-Mei ZengDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Qi HongDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Xian-Zhe QianDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Jin-Yu HuDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Chong-Gang PeiDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Hong WeiDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Jie ZouDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Cheng ChenDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Xiao-Yu WangDepartment of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
Xu ChenOphthalmology Centre of Maastricht University, Maastricht 6200MS, Limburg, Netherlands.
Zhen-Kai WuChangde Hospital, Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University (the First People's Hospital of Changde City), Changde 415000, Hunan Province, China.
Yi ShaoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Eye Diseases, Shanghai 200080, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo assess the possibility of using different large language models (LLMs) in ocular surface diseases by selecting five different LLMS to test their accuracy in answering specialized questions related to ocular surface diseases: ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-3.5, Claude 2, PaLM2, and SenseNova.

methodsA group of experienced ophthalmology professors were asked to develop a 100-question single-choice question on ocular surface diseases designed to assess the performance of LLMs and human participants in answering ophthalmology specialty exam questions. The exam includes questions on the following topics: keratitis disease (20 questions), keratoconus, keratomalaciac, corneal dystrophy, corneal degeneration, erosive corneal ulcers, and corneal lesions associated with systemic diseases (20 questions), conjunctivitis disease (20 questions), trachoma, pterygoid and conjunctival tumor diseases (20 questions), and dry eye disease (20 questions). Then the total score of each LLMs and compared their mean score, mean correlation, variance, and confidence were calculated.

resultsGPT-4 exhibited the highest performance in terms of LLMs. Comparing the average scores of the LLMs group with the four human groups, chief physician, attending physician, regular trainee, and graduate student, it was found that except for ChatGPT-4, the total score of the rest of the LLMs is lower than that of the graduate student group, which had the lowest score in the human group. Both ChatGPT-4 and PaLM2 were more likely to give exact and correct answers, giving very little chance of an incorrect answer. ChatGPT-4 showed higher credibility when answering questions, with a success rate of 59%, but gave the wrong answer to the question 28% of the time.

conclusionGPT-4 model exhibits excellent performance in both answer relevance and confidence. PaLM2 shows a positive correlation (up to 0.8) in terms of answer accuracy during the exam. In terms of answer confidence, PaLM2 is second only to GPT4 and surpasses Claude 2, SenseNova, and GPT-3.5. Despite the fact that ocular surface disease is a highly specialized discipline, GPT-4 still exhibits superior performance, suggesting that its potential and ability to be applied in this field is enormous, perhaps with the potential to be a valuable resource for medical students and clinicians in the future.

Indexed as

ChatGPT-3.5ChatGPT-4.0large language modelsocular surface diseases

Identifiers

PMID39829624
PMCPMC11672086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.