ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Can Multimodal Large Language Models Diagnose Diabetic Retinopathy from Fundus Photos? A Quantitative Evaluation.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large language models for primary care ophthalmic education: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Large Language Models Approximate Inter-Expert Agreement in Glaucoma Suspect and Glaucoma Classification from Multimodal Data.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Comparison of the performance of ChatGPT-5, Gemini 3, Copilot, Perplexity, and medical students in answering neurology questions: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Re: Most et al: Can Multimodal Large Language Models Diagnose Diabetic Retinopathy from Fundus Photos? A Quantitative Evaluation.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Re: Henriques et al Correspondence Re: Most et al: Can Multimodal Large Language Models Diagnose Diabetic Retinopathy from Fundus Photos? A Quantitative Evaluation.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Large language models for ophthalmic examination understanding: from information extraction to clinical decision support.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Benchmark evaluation of multi-modal large language models for ophthalmic diagnosis in real world.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErrata.2026
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 4 multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in detecting and grading diabetic retinopathy (DR) using their new image analysis features. Design: A single-center retrospective study. Subjects: Patients diagnosed with prediabetes and diabetes. Methods: Ultra-widefield fundus images from patients seen at the University of California, San Diego, were graded for DR severity by 3 retina specialists using the ETDRS classification system to establish ground truth. Four MLLMs (ChatGPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Google Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Perplexity Llama 3.1 Sonar/Default) were tested using 4 distinct prompts. These assessed multiple-choice disease diagnosis, binary disease classification, and disease severity. Multimodal large language models were assessed for accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in identifying the presence or absence of DR and relative disease severity. Main Outcome Measures: Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of diagnosis. Results: A total of 309 eyes from 188 patients were included in the study. The average patient age was 58.7 (56.7-60.7) years, with 55.3% being female. After specialist grading, 70.2% of eyes had DR of varying severity, and 29.8% had no DR. For disease identification with multiple choices provided, Claude and ChatGPT scored significantly higher ( Conclusions: Multimodal large language models are powerful tools that may eventually assist retinal image analysis. Currently, however, there is variability in the accuracy of image analysis, and diagnostic performance falls short of clinical standards for safe implementation in DR diagnosis and grading. Further training and optimization of common errors may enhance their clinical utility. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.