ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2025
Enhancing diabetic retinopathy query responses: assessing large language model in ophthalmology.
Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy and Effectiveness of AI-Powered Systems in Patient Counseling, Education, and Management in Optometry and Related Eye-Care Settings: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- IVCM-Insight: automated interactive interpretation of in vivo confocal microscopy.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of large language models and retrieval-augmented generation for clinical reasoning in pediatric myopia: a 50-case real-world study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparing the performance of four mainstream large language models on medical literature review generation: a human expert evaluation in SMILE surgery.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Optimizing Large Language Model Responses to Medical Queries: a Cross-sectional Study On the Effective Use of Chatgpt for Cancer-related Questions.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-5 versus other mainstream large language models in core diabetic retinopathy patient queries.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Leveraging ChatGPT for Report Error Audit: An Accuracy-Driven and Cost-Efficient Solution for Ophthalmic Imaging Reports.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
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
backgroundDiabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness, with an increasing reliance on large language models (LLMs) for health-related information. The specificity of LLM-generated responses to DR queries is yet to be established, prompting an investigation into their suitability for ophthalmological contexts.
methodsA cross-sectional study involving six LLMs was conducted to ascertain the accuracy and comprehensiveness of responses to 42 DR-related questions from 1 February 2024 to 31 March 2024. Three consultant-level ophthalmologists independently assessed the responses, grading them on accuracy and comprehensiveness. Additionally, the self-correction capability and readability of the responses were analysed statistically.
resultsAn analysis of 252 responses from six LLMs showed an average word count ranging from 155.3 to 304.3 and an average character count ranging from 975.3 to 2043.5. The readability scores showed significant variability, with ChatGPT-3.5 displaying the lowest readability level. The accuracy of the responses was high, with ChatGPT-4.0 receiving 97.6% good ratings and no 'poor' grades for the top three models. After introducing a self-correction prompt, the average accuracy score demonstrated a significant improvement, increasing from 6.4 to 7.5.
conclusionLLMs have the potential to provide accurate and comprehensive responses to DR-related questions, making them advantageous for ophthalmology applications. However, before clinical integration, further refinement is needed to address readability, and continuous validation assessments are imperative to ensure reliability.
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.