ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of Diagnostic and Management Capabilities of Infiniti AI and ChatGPT-4o in Corneal Diseases.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), is rapidly transforming medical education and clinical decision support. Ophthalmology, a specialty heavily reliant on pattern recognition, presents a promising domain for LLM integration. While general-purpose models like ChatGPT-4o have demonstrated strong performance in ophthalmic tasks, domain-specific systems such as Infiniti AI, built with a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework, claim advantages by grounding responses in peer-reviewed ophthalmic literature. This study compares ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) and Infiniti AI (Sinjab Academy, UAE) in corneal disease case scenarios. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty corneal cases were selected from the University of Iowa EyeRounds database, covering infectious, inflammatory, degenerative, developmental, and systemic associations. ChatGPT-4o, Infiniti AI, and a fellowship-trained cornea specialist independently evaluated each case. Diagnostic and management responses were scored against American Academy of Ophthalmology preferred practice pattern guidelines using a four-point scale (0-3). Statistical comparisons were performed using paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
resultsChatGPT-4o significantly outperformed Infiniti AI across all categories. Diagnostic accuracy was higher for ChatGPT-4o (2.37 ± 0.81) than Infiniti AI (1.13 ± 0.71, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.35). Management scores were also superior (2.65 ± 0.65 vs 1.98 ± 0.65, p < 0.001, d = 1.37). Overall, ChatGPT-4o achieved a mean total score of 5.00 ± 1.22 compared with 3.10 ± 1.10 for Infiniti AI (p < 0.001, d = 1.75).
conclusionsChatGPT-4o demonstrated greater diagnostic and management accuracy than Infiniti AI in corneal disease scenarios, highlighting the current strength of general-purpose LLMs over specialized retrieval-based systems. Nonetheless, both models remain prone to hallucinations and should serve as adjuncts to, rather than replacements for, expert judgment. Further refinement of ophthalmology-specific models is warranted to improve safety and clinical utility.
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.