ArticleEye (London, England)2025
Chat GPT vs an experienced ophthalmologist: evaluating chatbot writing performance in 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond text generation: a comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT-5.5 for scientific narrative review writing on sleeve gastrectomy.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative Performance of Gemini 3 Pro and GPT-5 Family Models on Ophthalmology Board-Style Questions.Ophthalmology science · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine the abilities of ChatGPT in writing scientific ophthalmology introductions and to compare those abilities to experienced ophthalmologists.
methodsOpenAI web interface was utilized to interact with and prompt ChatGPT 4 for generating the introductions for the selected papers. Consequently, each paper had two introductions-one drafted by ChatGPT and the other by the original author. Ten ophthalmology specialists with a minimal experience of more than 15 years, each representing distinct subspecialties-retina, neuro-ophthalmology, oculoplastic, glaucoma, and ocular oncology were provided with the two sets of introductions without revealing the origin (ChatGPT or human author) and were tasked to evaluate the introductions.
resultsFor each type of introduction, out of 45 instances, specialists correctly identified the source 26 times (57.7%) and erred 19 times (42.2%). The misclassification rates for introductions were 25% for experts evaluating introductions from their own subspecialty while to 44.4% for experts assessed introductions outside their subspecialty domain. In the comparative evaluation of introductions written by ChatGPT and human authors, no significant difference was identified across the assessed metrics (language, data arrangement, factual accuracy, originality, data Currency). The misclassification rate (the frequency at which reviewers incorrectly identified the authorship) was highest in Oculoplastic (66.7%) and lowest in Retina (11.1%).
conclusionsChatGPT represents a significant advancement in facilitating the creation of original scientific papers in ophthalmology. The introductions generated by ChatGPT showed no statistically significant difference compared to those written by experts in terms of language, data organization, factual accuracy, originality, and the currency of information. In addition, nearly half of them being indistinguishable from the originals. Future research endeavours should explore ChatGPT-4's utility in composing other sections of research papers and delve into the associated ethical considerations.
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.