ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Performance of GPT-5 Frontier Models in Ophthalmology Question Answering.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Diagnostic Performance of ChatGPT-5.0 versus Machine Learning in Orthodontics: A Comparative Analysis for Extraction Treatment Planning.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence to augment ethical problem solving in ophthalmology: GPT-5.1 versus a human ethicist.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Article
- Benchmarking GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Grok 4, and other LLMs on pediatric dentistry questions from a dental specialization exam.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of the quality, reliability, and readability of five large language model responses to frequently asked questions on gestational hypertension.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Novel large language models (LLMs) such as Generative Pretrained Transformer-5 (GPT-5) integrate advanced reasoning capabilities that may enhance performance on complex medical question-answering tasks. For this latest generation of reasoning models, the configurations that maximize both accuracy and cost-efficiency have yet to be established. Our objective was to evaluate the performance and cost-accuracy trade-offs of OpenAI's GPT-5 compared with previous generation LLMs on ophthalmic question answering. Design: Evaluation of diagnostic test or technology. Participants: Generative Pretrained Transformer-5 is a publicly available LLM. Methods: In August 2025, 12 configurations of OpenAI's GPT-5 series (3 model tiers across 4 reasoning effort settings) were evaluated alongside o1-high, o3-high, and GPT-4o, using 260 closed-access multiple-choice questions from the American Academy of Ophthalmology Basic Clinical Science Course data set. The study did not include human participants. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was accuracy on the 260-item ophthalmology multiple-choice question set for each model configuration. The secondary outcomes included head-to-head ranking of configurations using a Bradley-Terry model applied to paired win/loss comparisons of answer accuracy, and evaluation of generated natural language rationales using a reference-anchored, pairwise LLM-as-a-judge framework. Additional analyses assessed the accuracy-cost trade-off by calculating mean per-question cost from token usage and identifying Pareto-efficient configurations. Results: The configuration GPT-5-high achieved the highest accuracy (0.965; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.942-0.985), significantly outperforming all GPT-5-nano variants ( Conclusions: This study benchmarks the GPT-5 series on a high-quality ophthalmology question-answering data set, demonstrating that GPT-5 with high reasoning effort achieved near-perfect accuracy and outperformed prior reasoning LLMs. This study also introduces an autograder framework for scalable, automated evaluation of LLM-generated answers against reference standards in ophthalmology. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.