ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Enhancing Diagnostic Accuracy of Ophthalmological Conditions With Complex Prompts in GPT-4: Comparative Analysis of Global and Low- and Middle-Income Country (LMIC)-Specific Pathologies.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative artificial intelligence to augment ethical problem solving in ophthalmology: GPT-5.1 versus a human ethicist.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Enhancing Diagnostic Accuracy of Ophthalmological Conditions With Complex Prompts in GPT-4: Comparative Analysis of Global and Low- and Middle-Income Country (LMIC)-Specific Pathologies.JMIR formative research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The global incidence of blindness has continued to increase, despite the enactment of a Global Eye Health Action Plan by the World Health Assembly. This can be attributed, in part, to an aging population, but also to the limited diagnostic resources within low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The advent of generative artificial intelligence (AI) within health care could pose a novel solution to combating the prevalence of blindness globally. Objective: The objectives of this study are to quantify the effect the addition of a complex prompt has on the diagnostic accuracy of a commercially available LLM, and to assess whether such LLMs are better or worse at diagnosing conditions that are more prevalent in LMICs. Methods: Ten clinical vignettes representing globally and LMIC-prevalent ophthalmological conditions were presented to GPT-4-0125-preview using simple and complex prompts. Diagnostic performance metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), were calculated. Statistical comparison between prompts was conducted using a chi-square test of independence. Results: The complex prompt achieved a higher diagnostic accuracy (90.1%) compared to the simple prompt (60.4%), with a statistically significant difference (χ2=428.86; P<.001). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were consistently improved for most conditions with the complex prompt. The simple prompt struggled with LMIC-prevalent conditions, diagnosing only 1 of 5 accurately, while the complex prompt successfully diagnosed 4 of 5. Conclusions: The study established that overall, the inclusion of a complex prompt positively affected the diagnostic accuracy of GPT-4-0125-preview, particularly for LMIC-prevalent conditions. This highlights the potential for LLMs, when appropriately tailored, to support clinicians in diverse health care settings. Future research should explore the generalizability of these findings across other models and specialties.
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.