ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2025
Evaluating multiple large language models on orbital diseases.
Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The avoidance of mistakes by humans is achieved through continuous learning, error correction, and experience accumulation. This process is known to be both time-consuming and laborious, often involving numerous detours. In order to assist humans in their learning endeavors, ChatGPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) has been developed as a collection of large language models (LLMs) capable of generating responses that resemble human-like answers to a wide range of problems. In this study, we sought to assess the potential of LLMs as assistants in addressing queries related to orbital diseases. To accomplish this, we gathered a dataset consisting of 100 orbital questions, along with their corresponding answers, sourced from examinations administered to ophthalmologist residents and medical students. Five language models (LLMs) were utilized for testing and comparison purposes, namely, GPT-4, GPT-3.5, PaLM2, Claude 2, and SenseNova. Subsequently, the LLM exhibiting the most exemplary performance was selected for comparison against ophthalmologists and medical students. Notably, GPT-4 and PaLM2 demonstrated a superior average correlation when compared to the other LLMs. Furthermore, GPT-4 exhibited a broader spectrum of accurate responses and attained the highest average score among all the LLMs. Additionally, GPT-4 demonstrated the highest level of confidence during the test. The performance of GPT-4 surpassed that of medical students, albeit falling short of that exhibited by ophthalmologists. In contrast, the findings of the study indicate that GPT-4 exhibited superior performance within the orbital domain of ophthalmology. Given further refinement through training, LLMs possess considerable potential to be utilized as comprehensive instruments alongside medical students and ophthalmologists.
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.