ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2025
Chatbots versus retina specialists in answering real-world retina questions.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 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.
- Benchmarking large language models for congenital cataract parent counseling: safety, readability, and knowledge translation of developmental and genetic information.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChatbots powered by large language models have shown promising results when addressing medical queries, thus transforming access to medical information. Although these chatbots produce detailed and accurate responses, it is unclear how they perform when handling real, unedited patient questions, particularly in non-English languages. This study aimed to assess the readability, accuracy, and comprehensiveness of responses to retinal disease queries provided by four chatbots (ChatGPT 4.0, ConsensusGPT, Gemini, and Claude 3) compared to responses from retina specialists.
methodsIn this cross-sectional, comparative, and blinded study, twenty unedited questions about retinal diseases were randomly selected from a popular online video channel in Portuguese. The questions were submitted to the four selected chatbots and retina specialists with fellowship training. Two independent retinal experts evaluated the responses using standardized Likert scales for accuracy and completeness. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level tests. Additional metrics, including word count and response generation time, were analyzed. Data were compared among groups using non-parametric statistical tests, including the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's pairwise comparisons and chi-squared tests, with a two-sided p-value threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.
resultsRetinal specialists and the Gemini chatbot produced responses with higher readability, indicating lower educational levels were needed for comprehension. In contrast, ChatGPT 4.0, ConsensusGPT, and Claude 3 delivered more detailed and accurate answers but required a higher reading level. ChatGPT 4.0 and ConsensusGPT achieved superior quality and comprehensiveness ratings compared to human experts and the other chatbots. Additionally, all AI systems generated responses significantly faster than the human specialists. Evaluators could correctly distinguish between human-generated and AI-generated responses in most cases.
conclusionsArtificial intelligence chatbots demonstrate considerable promise for rapidly disseminating accurate medical information directly to the end-user, not only in English. However, optimizing the simplicity of their language is essential to ensure that detailed responses remain accessible to a broad audience. Future research should aim to replicate our findings with larger datasets of questions with the goal of refining these systems to balance comprehensive content with user-friendly language.
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.