ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Evolving Consultation: Enhancing Ophthalmic Diagnostic Performance Using Large Language Model.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk-centered benchmarking of large language models for AI-enabled counseling in chronic autoimmune thyroid eye disease.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- The AI-Augmented Ophthalmologist for chronic ocular diseases: a patient-centered framework for human-AI collaboration.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Patient education for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder using large language models: combining expert assessment and real-world patient interaction.Frontiers in physiology · 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
Objective: Artificial intelligence-powered large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in health care. However, studies in ophthalmology assessing whether LLMs can improve the accuracy of complex differential diagnoses in clinical cases, or which levels of clinical experience benefit most from their use, remain lacking. This study assessed the effectiveness of ChatGPT-4o, an LLM-driven chatbot, in enhancing ophthalmologists' clinical reasoning using original scenarios. Design: Prospective study. Subjects: Ten original ophthalmic clinical scenarios with open-ended questions were developed, covering the following subspecialties: oculoplastic and orbital disease, glaucoma, inherited retinal disease, macular disease, neuro-ophthalmology, ocular surface, pediatric ophthalmology, retinal vascular disease, strabismus, and uveitis. Methods: Responses to each clinical scenario were collected from 20 ophthalmologists (10 residents and 10 board-certified ophthalmologists) and ChatGPT-4o. Ophthalmologists subsequently revised their answers with assistance from ChatGPT-4o. All responses were anonymized and independently evaluated by 3 attending ophthalmologists based on 4 metrics: coherency, factuality, comprehensiveness, and safety (each on a 5-point scale). Main Outcome Measures: The median total scores for each group in coherency, factuality, comprehensiveness, and safety (maximum of 15 points each). Results: Assistance from ChatGPT-4o significantly improved evaluation scores for coherency, comprehensiveness, and safety among both residents and board-certified ophthalmologists (all, Conclusions: ChatGPT-4o effectively enhanced diagnostic reasoning and response quality, particularly among ophthalmology residents. However, successful integration into clinical education and practice requires careful management of increased variability in factuality and safety. This issue could be addressed by implementing strategies such as advanced retrieval-augmented generation systems to ensure the provision of accurate and safe clinical information. 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.