ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Accuracy and Reproducibility of Different Artificial Intelligence Chatbots' Responses to Patient-Based Vitreoretinal Questions: A Comparative Study.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How do large language models answer ADHD-related questions? A comparative study of ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Accuracy and readability of LLM-generated responses for gout management: a benchmark study based on ACR guidelines.Clinical rheumatology · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used by patients and their reliability in complex ophthalmic conditions remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility of five AI chatbots-ChatGPT-5.o, DeepSeek R1, Meta AI, Grok 3.0, and Google Gemini 2.5 Pro-in responding to patient-centered vitreoretinal questions. Methods: A total of 135 questions covering diabetic retinopathy, floaters/flashes, age-related macular degeneration, retinal tear/detachment, and vitrectomy were sourced from the American Academy of Ophthalmology "Ask an Ophthalmologist" database. Each question was submitted twice to each chatbot under standardized instructions. Two board-certified vitreoretinal ophthalmologists independently graded responses for accuracy and reproducibility. Accuracy was calculated as the proportion of responses graded "Correct and Comprehensive" or "Accurate but incomplete"; reproducibility was defined as agreement between the two responses. Results: ChatGPT-5.o achieved the highest overall accuracy (94%, n=127/135, 95% CI: 89.9%-98.1%) with a reproducibility rate of 96.3% (n=130/135, 95% CI: 93.1%-99.5%). DeepSeek R1 demonstrated the greatest reproducibility (98.5%, n=133/135, 95% CI: 96.5%-100.0%) and high accuracy (92.6%, n=125/135, 95% CI: 88.1%-97.1%). Meta AI showed 91% (95% CI: 86.1%-95.9%) accuracy and 94% (95% CI: 89.9%-98.1%) reproducibility, whereas Grok 3.0 yielded the lowest accuracy (49.6%, n=67/135, 95% CI: 41.2%-58.0%) despite moderate reproducibility (88.1%, n=119/135, 95% CI: 82.7%-93.5%). Google Gemini 2.5 Pro recorded 72.6% (95% CI: 65.1%-80.1%) accuracy and the lowest reproducibility (77%, 95% CI: 69.9%-84.1%). By category, "Vitrectomy" scored the highest across all chatbots (94%, 95% CI: 87.2%-100.0%), followed by "Macular degeneration" (90%, 95% CI: 85.0%-95.0%). However, the category "Diabetic retinopathy" scored the lowest accuracy rate (64.7%, 95% CI: 52.1%-77.3%). Conclusion: ChatGPT-5.o and DeepSeek R1 approached high accuracy and reproducibility comparable to clinical standards, indicating potential as patient-education tools in vitreoretinal care. However, variability across models and disease categories highlights the need for cautious clinical adoption and continued optimization to ensure safe, reliable information delivery.
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.