ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Transforming cataract care through artificial intelligence: an evaluation of large language models' performance in addressing cataract-related queries.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the performance of five popular large language models (LLMs) in addressing cataract-related queries. Methods: This comparative evaluation study was conducted at the Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University. We performed both qualitative and quantitative assessments of responses from five LLMs: ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4o, Gemini, Copilot, and the open-source Llama 3.5. Model outputs were benchmarked against human-generated responses using seven key metrics: accuracy, completeness, conciseness, harmlessness, readability, stability, and self-correction capability. Additional inter-model comparisons were performed across question subgroups categorized by clinical topic type. Results: In the information quality assessment, ChatGPT-4o demonstrated the best performance across most metrics, including accuracy score (6.70 ± 0.63), completeness score (4.63 ± 0.63), and harmlessness score (3.97 ± 0.17). Gemini achieved the highest conciseness score (4.00 ± 0.14). Further subgroup analysis showed that all LLMs performed comparably to or better than humans, regardless of the type of question posed. The readability assessment revealed that ChatGPT-4o had the lowest readability score (26.02 ± 10.78), indicating the highest level of reading difficulty. While Copilot recorded a higher readability score (40.26 ± 14.58) than the other LLMs, it still remained lower than that of humans (51.54 ± 13.71). Copilot also exhibited the best stability in reproducibility and stability assessment. All LLMs demonstrated strong self-correction capability when prompted. Conclusion: Our study suggested that LLMs exhibited considerable potential in providing accurate and comprehensive responses to common cataract-related clinical issues. Notably, ChatGPT-4o achieved the best scores in accuracy, completeness, and harmlessness. Despite these promising results, clinicians and patients should be aware of the limitations of artificial intelligence (AI) to ensure critical evaluation in clinical practice.
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.