ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating AI Versus Examiner Feedback in Ophthalmology Exit Examinations: A Pilot Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives This pilot study aims to compare the quality of feedback provided by generative artificial intelligence (AI) and an official Royal College Examiner for simulated clinical and communication scenarios designed to prepare candidates for the Royal College of Ophthalmologists Part 2 Oral Examination. Design Utilising GPT 3.5 and 4 (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA), an interactive web-based platform has been created that is able to simulate both patient and examiner roles in oral examination scenarios and simultaneously provide feedback on a candidate's performance. Feedback was provided solely using GPT-4 in combination with prompt techniques. A standardised patient was used to enact five clinical and communication scenarios that were each assessed by both the AI and a Royal College of Ophthalmologists Examiner. The transcripts from these sessions were thematically analysed using NVivo software (Lumivero, Burlington, MA, USA) to compare the quality and content of the feedback from both sources. Main outcome measures To determine the similarities and differences in the content and structure of feedback provided by AI (Examiner A) and a Royal College Examiner (Examiner B) in the context of preparing candidates for the Fellowship of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (FRCOphth) Part 2 Oral Examination. Results The results reveal that while both Examiner A and Examiner B provide feedback on similar themes, such as empathy, communication clarity and systematic clinical reasoning, their approaches differ. Examiner A's feedback was more structured and often referenced specific frameworks, offering detailed, protocol-driven guidance. In contrast, Examiner B's feedback was more practical and context-specific, focusing on real-world applications and providing nuanced insights shaped by experiential knowledge. Conclusion The findings suggest that generative AI has the potential to complement traditional oral exam preparation methods by providing easily accessible, structured and scalable feedback which could provide an early foundation of learning for candidates. It may be particularly useful for those unfamiliar with the specific requirements of Royal College examinations.
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.