ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Efficacy of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Chatbots in Addressing Queries on Vernal Conjunctivitis.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a recurrent allergic eye disease that requires accurate patient education to ensure proper management. AI-driven chatbots, such as Google Gemini Advanced (Mountain View, California, US), are increasingly being explored as potential tools for providing medical information. This study evaluates the accuracy, reliability, and clinical applicability of Google Gemini Advanced in addressing VKC-related queries. Objective To assess the performance of Google Gemini Advanced in delivering medically accurate and relevant information about VKC and to evaluate its reliability based on expert ratings. Methods A total of 125 responses generated by Google Gemini Advanced for 25 VKC-related questions were assessed by two independent cornea specialists. Responses were rated on accuracy, completeness, and potential harm using a 5-point Likert scale (1-5). Inter-rater reliability was measured using Cronbach's alpha. Responses were categorized into highly accurate (score of 5), minor inconsistencies (score of 4), and inaccurate (scores 1-3). Results Google Gemini Advanced demonstrated high inter-rater reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.87-0.94). Of the 125 responses, 108 (86.4%) were rated highly accurate (score of 5) while 17 (13.6%) had minor inconsistencies (score of 4) but posed no potential for harm. No responses were classified as inaccurate or potentially harmful. The combined mean score was 4.88 ± 0.31, reflecting strong agreement between raters. The chatbot consistently provided reliable information across diagnostic, treatment, and prognosis-related queries, with minor gaps in complex grading and treatment-related discussions. Discussion The findings support the use of AI-driven chatbots like Google Gemini Advanced as potential tools for patient education in ophthalmology. The chatbot exhibited strong accuracy and consistency, particularly in addressing general VKC-related queries. However, areas for improvement remain, especially in providing detailed guidance on treatment protocols and ensuring completeness in responses to complex clinical questions. Conclusion Google Gemini Advanced demonstrates high reliability and accuracy in delivering medical information about VKC, making it a valuable tool for patient education. While its responses are consistent and generally accurate, expert oversight remains necessary to refine AI-generated content for clinical applications. Further research is needed to enhance AI-driven chatbots' ability to provide nuanced medical advice and integrate them safely into ophthalmic patient education and clinical decision-making.
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.