ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Table-based language models for ophthalmology assessment in the emergency department.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2026. 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.
- Large language models for ophthalmic examination understanding: from information extraction to clinical decision support.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeGeneral-domain large language models (LLMs) have emerged as valuable tools in healthcare, however, their ability to understand and perform tasks based on data stored in tabular form has not been explored in Ophthalmology. We aimed to assess OpenAI's Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4o (GPT-4o) performance within real emergency department (ED) eye-related encounters extracted from electronic medical records in tabular format.
methodsWe input the excel spreadsheet containing the data on 1,419 unique eye-related ED encounters, divided into (1) chief complaint (CC), history of present illness (HPI), and eye examination; (2) CC and eye examination; (3) eye examination only, into GPT-4o via Microsoft's Azure OpenAI Service using chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting and evaluated the diagnosis and assessment performance of the LLM on the presented data. GPT-4o answers were reviewed by board-certified ophthalmologists and classified as (1) GPT-4o provided a correct diagnosis and assessment; (2) GPT-4o provided an incorrect diagnosis and assessment; (3) GPT-4o unable to provide a correct diagnosis as the encounter documentation was incorrect; (4) GPT-4o unable to provide a correct diagnosis as it required ancillary tests. A sample of encounters were reviewed by a second board-certified ophthalmologist for inter-grader agreement assessment. Average accuracy rates were used to evaluate performance and compare statistical significance across scenarios. A second CoT prompting was performed after providing the LLM with the final encounter diagnosis to evaluate disagreement/inconsistencies between the presented documentation and the reported diagnosis.
resultsGPT-4o (CoT) overall accuracy was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.79); no significant difference was found in accuracy when GPT-4o was presented with CC, HPI and eye findings vs. CC and eye findings vs. eye findings only (P = 0.675). The inter-grader agreement kappa was 0.841 (P < 0.001). GPT-4o identified that 6.6% of all encounters did not have EMR documentation that supported the final encounter diagnosis. When encounters with incorrect EMR documentation and encounters with requirements for ancillary tests (5.2%) were excluded, GPT-4o accuracy was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
conclusionsGPT-4o could accurately synthesize tabular data and provide assessments and diagnoses in real-world ophthalmology encounters, in addition to identify encounters with documentation that did not support the final ED encounter diagnosis. This capability has the potential to support the clinician's diagnosis.
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.