ArticleJournal of ophthalmic & vision research2025
Utilizing ChatGPT-3.5 to Assist Ophthalmologists in Clinical Decision-making.
Article in Journal of ophthalmic & vision research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: ChatGPT-3.5 has the potential to assist ophthalmologists by generating a differential diagnosis based on patient presentation. Methods: One hundred ocular pathologies were tested. Each pathology had two signs and two symptoms prompted into ChatGPT-3.5 through a clinical vignette template to generate a list of four preferentially ordered differential diagnoses, denoted as Method A. Thirty of the original 100 pathologies were further subcategorized into three groups of 10: cornea, retina, and neuro-ophthalmology. To assess whether additional clinical information affected the accuracy of results, these subcategories were again prompted into ChatGPT-3.5 with the same previous two signs and symptoms, along with additional risk factors of age, sex, and past medical history, denoted as Method B. A one-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to compare the accuracy between Methods A and B across each subcategory (significance indicated by Results: ChatGPT-3.5 correctly diagnosed 51 out of 100 cases (51.00%) as its first differential diagnosis and 18 out of 100 cases (18.00%) as a differential other than its first diagnosis. However, 31 out of 100 cases (31.00%) were not included in the differential diagnosis list. Only the subcategory of neuro-ophthalmology showed a significant increase in accuracy ( Conclusion: These results demonstrate that ChatGPT-3.5 may help assist clinicians in suggesting possible diagnoses based on varying complex clinical information. However, its accuracy is limited, and it cannot be utilized as a replacement for clinical decision-making.
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.