ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Artificial intelligence with ChatGPT 4: a large language model in support of ocular oncology cases.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Applications of Large Language Models in Glaucoma: A Scoping Review.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Comparative performance of large language models for patient-initiated ophthalmology consultations.Frontiers in public health · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate ChatGPT's ability to analyze comprehensive case descriptions of patients with uveal melanoma and provide recommendations for the most appropriate management.
designRetrospective analysis of ocular oncology patients' medical records. SUBJECTS: Forty patients treated for uveal melanoma between May 2019 and October 2023.
methodsWe uploaded each case description into the ChatGPT interface (version 4.0) and asked the model to provide realistic treatment options by asking the question, "What type of treatment do you recommend?" The accuracy of decisions produced by ChatGPT was compared to those recorded in patients' files and the treatment recommendations provided by three ocular oncologists, each with more than 10 years of experience.
main outcome measuresThe primary objective of this research was to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT replies in ocular oncology cases, analyzing its competence in both straightforward and intricate situations. Our secondary purpose was to assess the concordance between the responses of ChatGPT and those of ocular oncology specialists when faced with analogous clinical scenarios.
resultsChatGPT's surgical choices matched those in patients' files in 55% of cases (22 out of 40). ChatGPT options were agreed upon by 50%, 55%, and 57% of the three ocular oncology specialists. The investigation revealed significant differences between ChatGPT's responses and those of the three cancer specialists when compared to patients' files (p = 0.003, p = 0.001, and p = 0.001). ChatGPT's surgical responses matched with patient data in 18 out of 24 cases (75%), excluding enucleation cases. The decisions matched with the three ocular oncology specialists in 17/24, 18/24, and 18/24 cases, reflecting agreements of 70%, 75%, and 75%, respectively. The decisions made by ChatGPT were not significantly different from those of the three professionals in this cohort (p = 0.50, p = 0.36, and p = 0.36 for ChatGPT compared to specialists 1, 2, and 3).
conclusionChatGPT exhibited a level of proficiency that was comparable to that of trained ocular oncology specialists. However, it exhibited its limitations when evaluating more complex scenarios, such as extrascleral extension or infiltration of the optic nerve, when a comprehensive evaluation of the patient is therefore necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39918656What 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.