ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
A comparison of GPT-4V's capability in optical coherence tomography images of age-related macular degeneration with expert assessments.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Large language models for ophthalmic examination understanding: from information extraction to clinical decision support.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo examine the potential of GPT-4V(ision) in evaluating age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and other ophthalmological pathologies through optical coherence tomography (OCT) images.
methodsThe study analyzed 90 OCT images, evenly divided among dry AMD, wet AMD, and normal control groups, using the GPT-4V model via the Julius AI platform. Each image was evaluated twice by the model and independently by two ophthalmologists (with a third arbitrating discrepancies) using a standardized set of 20 closed-ended questions covering critical parameters. The outputs were then compared statistically in terms of agreement, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values to assess the model’s performance in detecting relevant pathological features.
resultsThe GPT-4V model exhibited agreement rates above 90%, high sensitivity, and specificity values in evaluating image quality, and normal OCT identification, detection of subretinal and intraretinal fluid, ellipsoid zone integrity, and wet-type AMD findings in AMD degeneration OCT images. Additionally, the two ophthalmology specialists exhibited excellent agreement (100%, p < 0.001) in 14 different questions when evaluating OCT images. However, the model’s performance was lower for dry AMD and normal OCT images, with sensitivities of 68.7% and 75.3%, respectively.
conclusionGPT-4V exhibited a promising performance as a clinical support tool in the evaluation of AMD through OCT images, albeit with limitations in detecting geographic atrophy and assessing dry AMD. However, the generalizabiity of these findings is constrained by the restricted dataset size and limited diagnostic spectrum. The GPT-4V model cannot therefore replace expert evaluation, although it appears promising as a clinical support tool. This study may also serve as a guide for larger-scale research.
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.