ArticleMaedica2025
Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Diagnosis of Retinal and Neuro-Ophthalmic Diseases: a Comparative Evaluation of ChatGPT, Google Gemini and An Ophthalmologist.
Article in Maedica, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of two large language models (LLMs), ChatGPT and Google Gemini, to identify common retinal and optic nerve diseases benchmarked against an experienced ophthalmologist. Methods: Thirty standardized case vignettes, each comprising a brief clinical history and a high-resolution fundus image, were independently evaluated by ChatGPT, Google Gemini and an ophthalmologist. Ten retinal and optic nerve diseases were included. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated against a gold standard defined by consensus of two retina specialists. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa (κ). Secondary outcomes included interpretation time and clarity of explanation. Results: The ophthalmologist achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy (96.7%), followed by ChatGPT (90.0%) and Google Gemini (86.7%). Agreement between ChatGPT and Gemini was moderate (κ = 0.51, p = 0.004). ChatGPT showed moderate agreement with the ophthalmologist (κ = 0.47, p = 0.002), while Gemini demonstrated fair agreement with the ophthalmologist (κ = 0.36, p = 0.01). ChatGPT was the fastest (mean 21.7 seconds), followed by Gemini (25.7 seconds) and the ophthalmologist (149.8 seconds). Clarity of interpretation was highest for the ophthalmologist (mean 4.53/5), followed by ChatGPT (3.60/5) and Gemini (2.96/5), with significant differences between groups. Conclusion: Ophthalmologists remain superior in diagnostic accuracy and clarity. However, ChatGPT and Google Gemini demonstrated strong performance in several retinal conditions. Their rapid evaluation times indicate potential utility as adjunct tools in triage, screening and education.
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.