ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Large language model-based scribing tools for ophthalmology: performance and safety evaluation using simulated clinical encounters.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the performance and safety of six LLM-based scribing tools in generating ophthalmological clinical notes from simulated physician-patient encounters.
methodsThis cross-sectional comparative study involved seven ophthalmic encounters, transcribed by six scribing tools (Heidi AI, Whisper GPT-4o, Whisper Gemini 1.5 Pro, i-scribe, Lyrebird, Twofold). Scribing tools were prompted to generate notes using Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan (SOAP) format. Consultant-level ophthalmologists evaluated note quality using the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9), which evaluates eight dimensions: "accurate", "thorough", "useful", "organized", "comprehensive", "succinct", "synthesized", "internally consistent" on a 5-point scale (with a maximum sum of 40). Text-generation metrics (ROUGE-L, BERTScore, BARTScore, AlignScore) were also used. Safety analysis was conducted to identify documentation errors categorised as omissions, incorrect information, and extraneous content.
resultsHeidi AI achieved the highest overall documentation quality (PDQI-9: 38.524, 95%CI: 37.815-39.233), followed by Whisper GPT-4o (38.048, 95%CI: 36.747-39.349). It scored highest in accuracy, usefulness, organisation, comprehensiveness, and succinctness, and led in ROUGE-L (0.326, 95%CI: 0.276-0.374), BERTScore (0.727, 95%CI: 0.707-0.747), and AlignScore (0.704, 95%CI: 0.650-0.758). All tools, however, exhibited errors. The most common were omissions of clinically relevant details, including disease severity, coexisting ocular conditions, systemic comorbidities, and management specifics. Some tools also generated incorrect or extraneous content, such as hallucinated patient requests or incorrect patient names.
conclusionsAmong the evaluated LLM based scribing tools, Heidi AI demonstrated the highest performance and shows promise for supporting ophthalmology documentation. However, persistent errors, particularly omissions of critical details, were observed across all tools and could compromise patient care. Human oversight and rigorous verification processes remain essential before clinical integration.
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.