Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40917271›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025

Assessing the Diagnostic Capabilities of ChatGPT-4 Omni in Grading Diabetic Retinopathy Fundoscopy Using Color Fundus Photographs.

Nitin Chetla, Sai S Samayamanthula, Joseph He Chang, Arnold Y Leigh, Sinan Akosman, Mihir Tandon, Tamer R Hage, Michael Cusick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nitin ChetlaUniversity of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Sai S SamayamanthulaUniversity of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Joseph He ChangUniversity of Passau, Passau, Germany.
Arnold Y LeighGeorge Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
Sinan AkosmanGeorge Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
Mihir TandonAlbany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA.
Tamer R HageVirginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Michael CusickUniversity of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-5480-5777

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of vision loss in working-age adults. Despite the importance of early DR detection, only 60% of patients with diabetes receive recommended annual screenings due to limited eye care provider capacity. FDA-approved AI systems were developed to meet the growing demand for DR screening; however, high costs and specialized equipment limit accessibility. More accessible and equally as accurate AI systems need to be evaluated to combat this disparity. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-4 Omni (GPT-4o) in classifying DR from color fundus photographs (CFPs) to assess its potential as a low-cost alternative screening tool. Methods: We utilized the publicly available EyePACS DR detection competition dataset from Kaggle, which includes 2,500 CFPs representing no DR, mild DR, moderate DR, severe DR, and proliferative DR. Each image was presented to GPT-4o with 1 of 8 prompts designed to enhance the model's accuracy. The results were analyzed through confusion matrices, and metrics such as accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 scores were calculated to evaluate performance. Results: In prompts 1-3, GPT-4o showed a strong bias towards classifying images as no DR, with an average accuracy of 51.0%, while accuracy for other stages ranged from 70% to 80%. GPT-4o struggled with misclassifications, particularly between adjacent DR levels. It performed best in detecting proliferative DR (Level 4), achieving an F1 score above 0.3 and accuracy exceeding 80%. In binary classification tasks (Prompts 4.1-4.4), GPT-4o's performance improved, though it still had difficulty distinguishing mild DR (49.8% accuracy). When compared to FDA-approved AI systems, GPT-4o's sensitivity (47.7%) and specificity (73.8%) were significantly lower. Conclusion: While GPT-4o shows promise identifying severe DR, limitations in distinguishing early stages exist and highlight the need for further refinement before clinical usage in DR screening. Unlike traditional CNN-based tools like IDx-DR, GPT-4o is a multimodal foundation model with a fundamentally different architecture and training process, which may contribute to its diagnostic limitations. GPT-4o and other LLMs are not designed to learn about important DR features like microaneurysms or hemorrhages using pixel data which is why they may struggle to detect DR compared to CNN models.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencediabetesEyePACSeye screeninglarge language modelmultimodal AI

Identifiers

PMID40917271
PMCPMC12411675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.