ArticleEye (London, England)2025
Comparative analysis of generic vision-language models in detecting and diagnosing inherited retinal diseases using fundus photographs.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimum reporting elements for ophthalmic vision-language model studies.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- A comparison of GPT-4V's capability in optical coherence tomography images of age-related macular degeneration with expert assessments.BMC ophthalmology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the clinical applicability of three generic Vision-Large-Language Models (VLLMs) - OpenAI's GPT-4omni, GPT-4V(ision) and Google's Gemini in detecting and diagnosing inherited retinal diseases (IRDs), using fundus photographs.
methodsThe head-to-head comparative study curated 60 ultra-widefield (UWF) fundus images of 30 IRD patients from the National University Hospital, Singapore. Additionally, ten normal, open-sourced UWF fundus images were included for comparison. The 70 fundus images were analysed by the three VLLMs using standardised prompts to generate descriptions of 10 specified retinal features and provide clinical insights. Each VLLM received 2100 scores for descriptions across ten features, rated by three blinded consultant-level graders using three-point scale (0 = poor, 1 = borderline, 2 = good). Clinical insights including disease detection, diagnosis and pathological gene inference evaluated against clinical ground-truth.
resultsGPT-4o achieved the highest mean quality score in feature description (1.64 [0.697], mean [SEM]), outperforming GPT-4V (1.57 [0.738]) and Gemini (1.46 [0.800]; both p < 0.001). All models demonstrated high detection accuracy (
conclusionsGPT-4omni and GPT-4V demonstrated promising potential in detecting IRDs from fundus photographs, with good feature extraction capabilities and high detection accuracy. Gemini struggled with misidentifying normal fundus images. All three VLLMs require further refinement to improve diagnostic accuracy and gene inference.
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.