ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2025
Assessing the possibility of using large language models in ocular surface diseases.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating the Performance of ChatGPT on Board-Style Examination Questions in Ophthalmology: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical systems · 2025Pooled it
- Application of large language models in clinical decision-making for dry eye disease.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of GPT-4, GPT-o3, GPT-5, Gemini-3-Flash, and DeepSeek-R1 in ophthalmology question answering.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Prediction of refractive error in adolescents using a multimodal large language model.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, and gemini 2.5 flash on Persian internal medicine subspecialty board exams.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Open- and closed-source LLMs in medical and engineering education.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- AI in conjunctivitis research: assessing ChatGPT and DeepSeek for etiology, intervention, and citation integrity via hallucination rate analysis.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Large language models in the management of chronic ocular diseases: a scoping review.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.