ArticleVision (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Coherent Interpretation of Entire Visual Field Test Reports Using a Multimodal Large Language Model (ChatGPT).
Article in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Large language models for ophthalmic examination understanding: from information extraction to clinical decision support.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Diagnostic interpretation of corneal tomography using a multimodal large language model (ChatGPT).American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2025Article
- Prediction of repeatable glaucomatous visual field defects based on cluster characteristics.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Making Chatbots more human: deep reasoning large language models in ophthalmology.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assesses the accuracy and consistency of a commercially available large language model (LLM) in extracting and interpreting sensitivity and reliability data from entire visual field (VF) test reports for the evaluation of glaucomatous defects. Single-page anonymised VF test reports from 60 eyes of 60 subjects were analysed by an LLM (ChatGPT 4o) across four domains-test reliability, defect type, defect severity and overall diagnosis. The main outcome measures were accuracy of data extraction, interpretation of glaucomatous field defects and diagnostic classification. The LLM displayed 100% accuracy in the extraction of global sensitivity and reliability metrics and in classifying test reliability. It also demonstrated high accuracy (96.7%) in diagnosing whether the VF defect was consistent with a healthy, suspect or glaucomatous eye. The accuracy in correctly defining the type of defect was moderate (73.3%), which only partially improved when provided with a more defined region of interest. The causes of incorrect defect type were mostly attributed to the wrong location, particularly confusing the superior and inferior hemifields. Numerical/text-based data extraction and interpretation was overall notably superior to image-based interpretation of VF defects. This study demonstrates the potential and also limitations of multimodal LLMs in processing multimodal medical investigation data such as VF reports.
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.