ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2025
Leveraging ChatGPT for Report Error Audit: An Accuracy-Driven and Cost-Efficient Solution for Ophthalmic Imaging Reports.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- EyeRAG: graph retrieval-augmented generation for safe and accurate clinical dialogue in ophthalmology.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAccurate ophthalmic imaging reports, including fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) and ocular B-scan ultrasound, are essential for effective clinical decision-making. The current process, involving drafting by residents followed by review by ophthalmic technicians and ophthalmologists, is time-consuming and prone to errors. This study evaluates the effectiveness of ChatGPT-4o in auditing errors in FFA and ocular B-scan reports and assesses its potential to reduce time and costs within the reporting workflow.
methodsPreliminary 100 FFA and 80 ocular B-scan reports drafted by residents were analyzed using GPT-4o to identify the errors in identifying left or right eye and incorrect anatomical descriptions. The accuracy of GPT-4o was compared to retinal specialists, general ophthalmologists, and ophthalmic technicians. Additionally, a cost-effective analysis was conducted to estimate time and cost savings from integrating GPT-4o into the reporting process. A pilot real-world validation with 20 erroneous reports was also performed between GPT-4o and human reviewers.
resultsGPT-4o demonstrated a detection rate of 79.0% (158 of 200; 95% CI 73.0-85.0) across all examinations, which was comparable to the average detection performance of general ophthalmologists (78.0% [155 of 200; 95% CI 72.0-83.0]; P ≥ 0.09). Integration of GPT-4o reduced the average report review time by 86%, completing 180 ophthalmic reports in approximately 0.27 h compared to 2.17-3.19 h by human ophthalmologists. Additionally, compared to human reviewers, GPT-4o lowered the cost from $0.21 to $0.03 per report (savings of $0.18). In the real-world evaluation, GPT-4o detected 18 of 20 errors with no false positives, compared to 95-100% by human reviewers.
conclusionsGPT-4o effectively enhances the accuracy of ophthalmic imaging reports by identifying and correcting common errors. Its implementation can potentially alleviate the workload of ophthalmologists, streamline the reporting process, and reduce associated costs, thereby improving overall clinical workflow and patient outcomes.
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.