Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40491696›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025

Evaluating the Application of Artificial Intelligence and Ambient Listening to Generate Medical Notes in Vitreoretinal Clinic Encounters.

Neeket R Patel, Corey R Lacher, Alan Y Huang, Anton Kolomeyer, J Clay Bavinger, Robert M Carroll, Benjamin J Kim, Jonathan C Tsui

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Attitudes and Knowledge Levels of Optometry Students and Educators Towards Artificial Intelligence in Optometric Practice: An Online Cross-Sectional Survey.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Neeket R PatelInstitute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA.
Corey R LacherInstitute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA.
Alan Y HuangScheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Anton KolomeyerScheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
J Clay BavingerThe Retina Group of Washington (PRISM Vision Group), New Providence, NJ, USA.
Robert M CarrollScheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Benjamin J KimScheie Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jonathan C TsuiInstitute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3186-6267

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Analyze the application of large language models (LLM) to listen to and generate medical documentation in vitreoretinal clinic encounters. Subjects: Two publicly available large language models, Google Gemini 1.0 Pro and Chat GPT 3.5. Methods: Patient-physician dialogues simulating vitreoretinal clinic scenarios were scripted to simulate real-world encounters and recorded for standardization. Two artificial intelligence engines were given the audio files to transcribe the dialogue and produce medical documentation of the encounters. Similarity of the dialogue and LLM transcription was assessed using an online comparability tool. A panel of practicing retina specialists evaluated each generated medical note. Main Outcome Measures: The number of discrepancies and overall similarity of LLM text compared to scripted patient-physician dialogues, and scoring on the physician documentation quality instrument-9 (PDQI-9) of each medical note by five retina specialists. Results: On average, the documentation produced by AI engines scored 81.5% of total possible points in documentation quality. Similarity between pre-formed dialogue scripts and transcribed encounters was higher for ChatGPT (96.5%) compared to Gemini (90.6%, p<0.01). The mean total PDQI-9 score among all encounters from ChatGPT 3.5 (196.2/225, 87.2%) was significantly greater than Gemini 1.0 Pro (170.4/225, 75.7%, p=0.002). Conclusion: The authors report the aptitude of two popular LLMs (ChatGPT 3.5 and Google Gemini 1.0 Pro) in generating medical notes based on audio recordings of scripted vitreoretinal clinical encounters using a validated medical documentation tool. Artificial intelligence can produce quality vitreoretinal clinic encounter medical notes after listening to patient-physician dialogues despite case complexity and missing encounter variables. The performance of these engines was satisfactory but sometimes included fabricated information. We demonstrate the potential utility of LLMs in reducing the documentation burden on physicians and potentially streamlining patient care.

Indexed as

clinical documentationlarge language modelophthalmologyretina

Identifiers

PMID40491696
PMCPMC12146405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.