ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Evaluating the Application of Artificial Intelligence and Ambient Listening to Generate Medical Notes in Vitreoretinal Clinic Encounters.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Requirements for artificial intelligence scribe systems for medical documentation in ophthalmology].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- 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) · 2026Article
- Digital Cardiovascular Twins, AI Agents, and Sensor Data: A Narrative Review from System Architecture to Proactive Heart Health.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.