Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41908501›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science2026

Assessment of Correctness, Content Omission, and Risk of Harm in Large Language Model Responses to Ophthalmology Continuing Medical Education Questions.

Jacqueline L Chen, Amanda J Lu, Rohan Verma, Li Wang, Douglas D Koch, Allison J Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jacqueline L ChenSidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Amanda J LuDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Rohan VermaMann Eye Institute, Houston, Texas.
Li WangBaylor College of Medicine, Cullen Eye Institute, Houston, Texas.
Douglas D KochBaylor College of Medicine, Cullen Eye Institute, Houston, Texas.
Allison J ChenBaylor College of Medicine, Cullen Eye Institute, Houston, Texas.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and prose responses of 2 large language models (LLMs) to ophthalmology continuing medical education questions. Design: Question prompts and multiple choice (MC) answer options were input into the 2 LLMs, and responses were analyzed for accuracy and assessed for evidence of correctness, completeness, bias, and potential harm using a previously reported standardized rubric. Subjects: Basic and Clinical Science Course questions and MC answer options from the American Academy of Ophthalmology question bank were used as inputs into the 2 LLMs (ChatGPT-4 and Google Vertex's Gemini Pro 1.5). Methods: The MC responses were assessed for accuracy in comparison to the question bank's designated corrected answer. The free-text prose responses from the 2 LLMs were assessed by 3 board-certified ophthalmologists. Main Outcome Measures: Accuracy and assessment of correct and incorrect reasoning, inappropriate content, missing content, possibility of bias, or possibility of harm. Results: The MC accuracy rates of ChatGPT-4 and Gemini Pro 1.5 were 82.5% (99/120) and 49.2% (59/120) ( Conclusions: Though ChatGPT-4 was able to perform well in MC accuracy, both LLMs contained inaccuracies, missing content, and material that could lead to harm in their prose responses. Our findings suggest that provider-guided auditing in ophthalmology is required before the use of the technology in direct patient-facing settings. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Indexed as

AccuracyChatGPT-4Gemini Pro 1.5Large language models

Identifiers

PMID41908501
PMCPMC13019321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.