ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2025
Performance of ChatGPT-4 Omni and Gemini 1.5 Pro on Ophthalmology-Related Questions in the Turkish Medical Specialty Exam.
Article in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Medical Assessment: Reliability and Performance of Multimodal Large Language Models in a High-Stakes Licensing Examination.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, and gemini 2.5 flash on Persian internal medicine subspecialty board exams.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
Objectives: To evaluate the response and interpretative capabilities of two pioneering artificial intelligence (AI)-based large language model (LLM) platforms in addressing ophthalmology-related multiple-choice questions (MCQs) from Turkish Medical Specialty Exams. Materials and Methods: MCQs from a total of 37 exams held between 2006-2024 were reviewed. Ophthalmology-related questions were identified and categorized into sections. The selected questions were asked to the ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro AI-based LLM chatbots in both Turkish and English with specific prompts, then re-asked without any interaction. In the final step, feedback for incorrect responses were generated and all questions were posed a third time. Results: A total of 220 ophthalmology-related questions out of 7312 MCQs were evaluated using both AI-based LLMs. A mean of 6.47±2.91 (range: 2-13) MCQs was taken from each of the 33 parts (32 full exams and the pooled 10% of exams shared between 2022 and 2024). After the final step, ChatGPT-4o achieved higher accuracy in both Turkish (97.3%) and English (97.7%) compared to Gemini 1.5 Pro (94.1% and 93.2%, respectively), with a statistically significant difference in English (p=0.039) but not in Turkish (p=0.159). There was no statistically significant difference in either the inter-AI comparison of sections or interlingual comparison. Conclusion: While both AI platforms demonstrated robust performance in addressing ophthalmology-related MCQs, ChatGPT-4o was slightly superior. These models have the potential to enhance ophthalmological medical education, not only by accurately selecting the answers to MCQs but also by providing detailed explanations.
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.