ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2025
Evaluating the competence of large language models in ophthalmology clinical practice: a multi-scenario quantitative study.
Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: A comparative evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is crucial for their application in specialized fields, such as ophthalmology. This study systematically assesses five prominent LLMs (ChatGPT 4, Claude 3 Opus, Gemini 1.5 Flash, ERNIE 3.5, and iFLY Healthcare) to quantify their performance across key clinical domains and provide evidence-based guidance for their integration. Methods: We evaluated the LLMs across three simulated ophthalmic scenarios. For clinical assistance, the models responded to 50 questions, which were assessed for accuracy, completeness, and readability. For diagnosis and treatment, models answered 375 qualification exam questions to assess clinical reasoning. For doctor-patient communication, models responded to 20 SPIKES-based scenarios, which were analyzed for emotional and social engagement. Results: In clinical assistance, Gemini 1.5 Flash demonstrated superior accuracy and completeness, while Claude 3 Opus produced the most readable text. For diagnosis and treatment, all models surpassed the passing threshold for the qualification exam, with Claude 3 Opus achieving the highest overall accuracy (81.07%). In doctor-patient communication, Gemini 1.5 Flash showed the strongest performance in positive emotional expression and social engagement. Conclusion: This study innovatively evaluates LLMs in ophthalmic practice. Gemini 1.5 Flash excels in generating accurate clinical content and engaging with patients, whereas Claude 3 Opus demonstrates exceptional clinical reasoning and readability of text. Findings validate LLMs' clinical potential while providing evidence-based selection criteria for ophthalmic AI applications. The results establish practical foundations for optimizing ophthalmic AI model development and systematically constructing intelligent ophthalmic hospital systems.
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.