Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40265401›Full record

ArticleVision (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Coherent Interpretation of Entire Visual Field Test Reports Using a Multimodal Large Language Model (ChatGPT).

Jeremy C K Tan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jeremy C K TanFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW 2033, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4117-7446

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

glaucomalarge language modelvision language modelvisual field

Identifiers

PMID40265401
PMCPMC12015771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.