ArticleDigital health
Evaluating the reliability of large language models in answering FAQs for cataract surgery.
Article in Digital health. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cataract surgery is one of the most common and effective surgeries performed worldwide, yet patient education remains a challenge due to limitations in health literacy among the general population. Our study evaluated the reliability of different large language models (LLMs) in providing accurate, complete, and clear responses to frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to cataract surgery. A comprehensive list of 20 FAQs about cataract surgery were submitted sequentially as a prompt to nine different LLMs. All 180 answers were recorded and scored by two expert ophthalmologists, blinded to the model type, on a 5-point scale measuring the degree of accuracy, completeness, and clarity. Interrater agreement was measured using a weighted kappa coefficient and model performances were compared using the Friedman test and post-hoc analysis. Our results showed all models performed well responding to FAQs (79% of responses scored "excellent"), serving as effective tools in answering patient FAQs. LLaMA 4 and Copilot scored lower on average relative to other models (
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.