ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Accuracy of Gemini 2.0 Advanced and ChatGPT 4o in Cataract Knowledge: A Performance Analysis Using Brazilian Council of Ophthalmology Board Exam Questions.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of 5 AI Models on United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Questions: Comparative Observational Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Performance of ChatGPT-4o, Gemini Advanced-2.0, and DeepSeek-V3 in the diagnosis and management of temporomandibular disorders.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- 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
introductionLarge language models (LLMs) like Gemini 2.0 Advanced and ChatGPT-4o are increasingly applied in medical contexts. This study assesses their accuracy in answering cataract-related questions from Brazilian ophthalmology board exams, evaluating their potential for clinical decision support.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted using 221 multiple-choice questions. Responses from both LLMs were evaluated by two independent ophthalmologists against the official answer key. Accuracy rates and inter-evaluator agreement (Cohen's kappa) were analyzed.
resultsGemini 2.0 Advanced achieved 85.45% and 80.91% accuracy, while ChatGPT-4o scored 80.00% and 84.09%. Inter-evaluator agreement was moderate (κ = 0.514 and 0.431, respectively). Performance varied across exam years.
conclusionBoth models demonstrated high accuracy in cataract-related board exam questions, supporting their potential as educational tools. However, moderate agreement and performance variability indicate the need for further refinement and validation.
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.