ArticleCureus2025
Diagnostic Performance of ChatGPT in Corneal Disease Recognition From Slit-Lamp Photographs.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI San Francisco, CA, USA), a large language model (LLM), in identifying corneal pathology solely from slit-lamp photographs, without any additional clinical context, and compare accuracy to consultant ophthalmologists.
methodsThis was a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. A total of 22 images were selected from the Atlas at EyeRounds.org (The University of Iowa). Diagnostic accuracy, defined as the proportion of correctly identified cases, was calculated for ChatGPT-4o and two consultant ophthalmologists, against the reference standard. Pairwise comparisons between ChatGPT-4o and each consultant ophthalmologist were performed using McNemar's test to evaluate differences between the AI model and each consultant ophthalmologist.
resultsThe accuracy of identifying a characteristic sign or diagnosis for ChatGPT was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.28 - 0.72, p-value 1.00), compared to 0.64 (95% CI: 0.41 - 0.83, p-value 0.29) for Ophthalmologist A and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.32 - 0.76, p-value 0.83) for Ophthalmologist B. McNemar's test demonstrated a statistically significant difference between ChatGPT and Ophthalmologist A (p = 0.01), whereas no statistical significance was observed between ChatGPT and Ophthalmologist B (p = 0.37).
conclusionsIn this study, ChatGPT-4o demonstrated moderate diagnostic accuracy in identifying corneal pathology from slit-lamp photographs, with performance comparable to that of consultant ophthalmologists. These findings highlight the potential feasibility of using LLMs as adjunctive tools in ophthalmic image interpretation. Limitations include the AI model's tendency to produce confident yet occasionally inaccurate responses. While not yet suitable for autonomous diagnostic use, ChatGPT-4o shows promise as a supportive aid in clinical decision-making when used under appropriate expert supervision.
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.