Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40588331›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2025

Enhancing diabetic retinopathy query responses: assessing large language model in ophthalmology.

Hongkang Wu, Zichang Su, Xiangji Pan, An Shao, Yufeng Xu, Yao Wang, Kai Jin, Juan Ye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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.

Hongkang WuEye Center, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Second Affiliated Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Zichang SuEye Center, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Second Affiliated Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Xiangji PanEye Center, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Second Affiliated Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
An ShaoEye Center, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Second Affiliated Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Yufeng XuEye Center, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Second Affiliated Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Yao WangEye Center, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Second Affiliated Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Kai JinEye Center, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Second Affiliated Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China yejuan@zju.edu.cn jinkai@zju.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4369-2417
Juan YeEye Center, Zhejiang University School of Medicine Second Affiliated Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China yejuan@zju.edu.cn jinkai@zju.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1948-2500

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Diabetic RetinopathyLanguageOphthalmologyComprehensionCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLarge Language ModelsSurveys and QuestionnairesMedical EducationRetinaTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID40588331
PMCPMC12573325

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.