ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Benchmark analysis of myopia-related issues using large language models: a comparison of ChatGPT-4o and deepseek.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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.
- Large Language Models for Ophthalmology Training in China: A Prospective Evaluation.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Comparison of ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek R1 in the Management of Ophthalmological Emergencies-An Analysis of Ten Fictional Case Vignettes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the accuracy and comprehensiveness of responses generated by ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek regarding commonly asked questions about myopia.
methodsThirty myopia-related questions spanning six clinical domains were submitted to both chatbots. Three medical professionals independently rated each response for accuracy and comprehensiveness. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Fleiss' Kappa, and Shapiro-Wilk tests were conducted to examine normality in rating distributions. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Chi-square test, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsDeepSeek outperformed ChatGPT-4o in overall accuracy, with significantly more responses rated as "Good" (p < 0.0001). Both models demonstrated high comprehensiveness scores when accuracy was rated "Good," though performance declined in treatment-related queries, particularly regarding commercial products like DIMS lenses. Fleiss' Kappa values indicated poor inter-rater agreement (DeepSeek: [Formula: see text] = 0.106; ChatGPT-4o: [Formula: see text] = - 0.0221), and normality tests showed non-normal score distributions (p < 0.0001 across domains).
conclusionBoth ChatGPT-4o and DeepSeek can deliver useful responses to myopia-related questions, though limitations remain in areas requiring up-to-date, region-specific treatment information. DeepSeek's stronger performance suggests that localized LLMs may offer competitive advantages. Ongoing refinement, regular data updates, and domain-specific fine-tuning are essential for improving the reliability of AI chatbots in clinical communication.
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.