Observational studyTurkish journal of ophthalmology2026
Evolving Minds: Natural Learning vs. Artificial Learning in Ophthalmology Training.
Observational study in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 2026. 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
Objectives: This study aimed to compare year-over-year change in ChatGPT's performance on nationwide ophthalmology exams with the performance change among residents over the same period. Materials and Methods: This observational study included ophthalmology residents in Türkiye who participated in both the 2023 and 2024 Resident Training Development Exams organized by the Turkish Ophthalmological Association Qualifications Committee. The 2023 examination consisted of 69 single-best-answer multiple-choice questions and was administered to ChatGPT-3.5. The 2024 version, containing 72 questions, was administered to ChatGPT-4o. The success rates of ChatGPT and the residents who participated in both exams were compared. Results: ChatGPT's accuracy improved from 53.6% in 2023 to 84.7% in 2024. Among the 501 residents who participated in both years, the average score increased from 48.2% to 53.1%. ChatGPT ranked 292 Conclusion: ChatGPT-4o showed a marked improvement in answering ophthalmology questions compared to its predecessor, whereas resident learning progressed more gradually. This rapid advancement in ChatGPT highlights the potential speed with which artificial learning can progress within defined boundaries. In contrast, human learning remains a deeper and more time-intensive process. Results suggest that evolving large language models will play an increasingly significant role in medical education and clinical support.
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.