ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Comparative performance of large language models in answering cornea and cataract surgery questions for resident training.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
backgroundThe application of large language models (LLMs) in the medical field has gained increasing popularity; however, their effectiveness in ophthalmology remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of responses generated by various deep learning-based LLMs to questions on cataract and corneal diseases and surgeries, and to verify their educational effectiveness by comparing the performances of LLMs with those provided by ophthalmology fellows and residents.
methodsEighty-one multiple-choice questions on corneal diseases and cataract surgeries were developed based on the standard format of the Korean ophthalmology board examination and categorized into three subtypes: recall-type (n = 27), interpretation-type (n = 27), and problem-solving-type (n = 27). The accuracy and appropriateness of commonly used LLMs (ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, Gemini 3.0 Pro, and Claude Sonnet 4.5) were evaluated and compared with one another, and against the performances of three ophthalmology residents and three corneal fellows.
resultsAmong the four LLMs, ChatGPT-5 demonstrated the highest overall accuracy (75/81; 92.59%), followed by Gemini 3.0 Pro (73/81; 90.12%) and Claude Sonnet 4.5 (73/81; 90.12%), all of which outperformed ChatGPT-4o (70/81; 86.42%) as well as ophthalmology fellows (86.42 ± 1.23%) and residents (82.30 ± 8.22%). For recall-type questions, ChatGPT-5 achieved the highest accuracy (92.59%), and the other three LLMs (85.19%) outperformed both fellows (82.72 ± 4.28%) and residents (71.60 ± 17.50%). In interpretation-type questions, ChatGPT-5, Gemini 3.0 Pro, and Claude Sonnet 4.5 achieved perfect scores (100%), while ChatGPT-4o (92.59%) performed comparably to fellows (92.59 ± 7.41%) and better than residents (87.65 ± 4.28%). However, in problem-solving-type questions, all LLMs scored relatively lower (ChatGPT-5: 85.19%; others: 81.48%) than the mean performance of fellows (87.65 ± 11.91%).
conclusionsAmong the LLMs, ChatGPT-5 demonstrated the highest overall performance; however, no statistically significant differences were observed between the models. Compared with ophthalmology trainees, ChatGPT-5, Gemini 3.0 Pro, and Claude Sonnet 4.5 achieved significantly higher overall scores than the mean trainee performance. Although LLMs showed good performance in recall- and interpretation-type questions, their relatively lower accuracy in problem-solving-type questions suggests that further advances in LLMs are necessary for their reliable use as educational tools in ophthalmology.
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.