ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Comparative analysis of large language models in providing patient information about keratoconus and contact lenses.
Article in International ophthalmology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy, completeness, informational quality, and readability of responses generated by large language models (LLMs)-ChatGPT (OpenAI, USA), Gemini (Google, USA), and Copilot (Microsoft, USA)-to patient questions concerning keratoconus and contact lens use.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 32 questions across eight domains were posed to the free versions of each model. Two independent ophthalmologists rated accuracy (6-point Likert scale) and completeness (3-point Likert scale). Information quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument, and readability was evaluated with the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Inter-rater agreement was measured with Cohen's Kappa.
resultsInter-rater reliability showed at least fair agreement for all LLMs. (min κ = 0.365) ChatGPT achieved significantly higher accuracy than Gemini (p < 0.001) and Copilot (p = 0.010), and higher completeness than Gemini (p = 0.001) but was similar to Copilot (p = 0.101). DISCERN scores were highest for ChatGPT (64), followed by Copilot (61) and Gemini (55). All models produced difficult-to-read content (FRES: Gemini 49.7, Copilot 45.4, ChatGPT 40.7), with FKGL values at late high school level.
conclusionAll evaluated large language models were capable of providing generally accurate and thorough information regarding keratoconus and contact lens use. Nevertheless, limitations in readability across models highlight the importance of clinician oversight to ensure that patient education remains clear, accessible, and appropriately tailored to individual needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40824599What 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.