Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40631633›Full record

ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025

Performance of ChatGPT on optometry and vision science exam questions.

Nayuta Yoshioka, Vanessa Honson, Revathy Mani, Sharon Oberstein, Kathleen Watt, Vinod Maseedupally

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Performance of ChatGPT on optometry and vision science exam questions.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    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

6 authors.

Nayuta YoshiokaSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6371-0566
Vanessa HonsonSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Revathy ManiSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sharon ObersteinSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kathleen WattSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Vinod MaseedupallySchool of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid proliferation of Large Language Models (LLM) tools, such as ChatGPT developed by OpenAI, presents both a challenge and an opportunity for educators. While LLMs can generate convincing written responses across a wide range of academic fields, their capabilities vary noticeably across different models, fields and even sub-fields. This paper aims to evaluate the capabilities of LLMs in the field of optometry and vision science by analysing the quality of the responses generated by ChatGPT using sample long answer questions covering different sub-fields of optometry, namely binocular vision, clinical communication, dispensing and ocular pathology. It also seeks to explore the possibility of LLMs being used as virtual graders. The capabilities of ChatGPT were explored utilising various GPT models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4 and o1 models, from oldest to newest) by investigating the concordance between ChatGPT and a human grader. This was followed by benchmarking the performance of these GPT models to various sample questions in optometry and vision science. Statistical analyses include mixed-effect analysis and the Friedman test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and thematic analysis. ChatGPT graders awarded higher marks compared to human graders, but significant only for GPT-3.5 (p < 0.05). Benchmarking on sample questions demonstrated that all GPT models can generate satisfactory responses above the 50% 'pass' score in many cases (p < 0.05), albeit with the performance varying significantly across different sub-fields (p < 0.0001) and models (p = 0.0003). Newer models significantly outperformed older models in most cases. The frequency of thematic response errors was more mixed between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models (p < 0.05 to p > 0.99), while o1 made no thematic errors. These findings indicate ChatGPT may impact learning and teaching practices in this field. The inconsistent performances across sub-fields and additional implementation considerations, such as ethics and transparency, support a judicious adaptation of assessment practice and adoption of the technology in optometry and vision science education.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementLanguageOptometryGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansartificial intelligencelarge language modelsoptometry assessmentoptometry education

Identifiers

PMID40631633
PMCPMC12357226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.