ArticleMedicine2026
Current capabilities of large language models as peer reviewers for manuscripts submitted to ophthalmology-related journals.
Article in Medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare large language models (LLMs) and human reviewers in the peer review process of manuscripts submitted to 3 ophthalmology-related journals. This retrospective study comprised 300 randomly selected manuscripts from 3 anonymized journals under 1 editor between June 2023 and July 2024. Comments from 2 LLMs (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer [ChatGPT] 4o and Gemini) and human reviewers (324 ophthalmologists) were compared. LLMs were prompted to accept, accept with major or minor revisions, or reject each manuscript in addition to providing comments. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess the "favorability" of comments and compare manuscripts that were accepted or rejected by the editor. A 4-category quality assessment was used to compare the number of comments, detail/specificity, critical analysis, and literature support. Human reviewers rejected manuscripts more frequently (73.33% vs 2.00% ChatGPT and 2.00% Gemini; P < .001) and suggested major (22.67% vs 68.00% ChatGPT and 31.33% Gemini; P < .001) or minor revisions (3.33% vs 30.00% ChatGPT and 66.33% Gemini; P < .001) less often. Human reviewers gave more negative feedback for rejected manuscripts (-1.05 vs -0.02 ChatGPT and 0.24 Gemini; P < .015). ChatGPT repeated "novelty," "sample size," and "clarity" in 75%, 60%, and 50% of cases, respectively, while Gemini did so in 80%, 70%, and 65% of cases. Both lacked specificity, omitting line numbers and references. Although it is hoped that LLMs will one day be able to augment the role of peer reviewers, in their current state, LLMs should not be used for manuscript revision.
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.