ArticleEye (London, England)2025
"Comparative analysis of large language models against the NHS 111 online triaging for emergency ophthalmology".
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study presents a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of various large language models in generating responses for ophthalmology emergencies and compares their accuracy with the established United Kingdom's National Health Service 111 online system.
methodsWe included 21 ophthalmology-related emergency scenario questions from the NHS 111 triaging algorithm. These questions were based on four different ophthalmology emergency themes as laid out in the NHS 111 algorithm. Responses generated from NHS 111 online, were compared to different LLM-chatbots responses to determine the accuracy of LLM responses. We included a range of models including ChatGPT-3.5, Google Bard, Bing Chat, and ChatGPT-4.0. The accuracy of each LLM-chatbot response was compared against the NHS 111 Triage using a two-prompt strategy. Answers were graded as following: -2 graded as "Very poor", -1 as "Poor", O as "No response", 1 as "Good", 2 as "Very good" and 3 graded as "Excellent".
resultsOverall LLMs' attained a good accuracy in this study compared against the NHS 111 responses. The score of ≥1 graded as "Good" was achieved by 93% responses of all LLMs. This refers to at least part of this answer having correct information as well as absence of any wrong information. There was no marked difference and very similar results seen overall on both prompts.
conclusionsThe high accuracy and safety observed in LLM responses support their potential as effective tools for providing timely information and guidance to patients. LLMs hold promise in enhancing patient care and healthcare accessibility in digital age.
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.