ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2026
ChatGPT-5 versus other mainstream large language models in core diabetic retinopathy patient queries.
Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk-centered benchmarking of large language models for AI-enabled counseling in chronic autoimmune thyroid eye disease.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Application effect and teaching evaluation of case-based learning combined with ChatGPT in ophthalmology clinical teaching.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models for diabetic retinopathy multiple-choice question generation in clinical ophthalmic education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Assessing the information quality of AI-generated patient educational materials for diabetes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Benchmarking publicly accessible large language models for high-myopia multiple-choice question generation in digital ophthalmic education and public health training.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of preventable vision loss, and patients increasingly seek disease related information through online consultations. Large language models may support patient education, but their reliability and usability vary across systems, particularly in disease specific settings. Methods: Thirty common patient questions about diabetic retinopathy were developed from guidelines and organized into five domains: disease overview, screening and diagnosis, treatment and follow up, lifestyle and prevention, and prognosis and complication management. From November 10 to 15, 2025, two researchers independently submitted all questions to five models (ChatGPT-5, DeepSeek-V3.1, Doubao, Wenxinyiyan 4.5 Turbo, and Kimi) on public platforms under identical conditions without system prompts. Chat histories were reset before each question. Response time, response length, structural metrics, and table outputs were extracted. Two retinal specialists rated each answer on a 1 to 5 Likert scale across accuracy, logical consistency, coherence, safety, and content accessibility. Inter rater agreement was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient. Group differences were analyzed using analysis of variance or the Kruskal-Wallis H test with Bonferroni corrected pairwise comparisons. Results: Significant between model differences were observed in output efficiency and textual characteristics (all P < 0.001). ChatGPT-5 responded fastest (15.92 ± 4.48 s), whereas Wenxinyiyan 4.5 Turbo and DeepSeek-V3.1 were slowest (41.89 ± 5.09 s and 38.20 ± 2.96 s). DeepSeek-V3.1 generated the longest answers (1396.37 ± 189.23 words), while Kimi produced the shortest (579.40 ± 182.96 words). Only ChatGPT-5 consistently generated structured tables (median 2.00, IQR 1.00-2.00). Content quality differed significantly across all five dimensions (H = 15.34-37.19, all P ≤ 0.004). ChatGPT-5 achieved the highest median scores for accuracy (5.00, IQR 4.00-5.00) and logical consistency (4.50, IQR 4.00-5.00), whereas Kimi showed the lowest accuracy (3.50, IQR 3.00-4.00). The intraclass correlation coefficient indicated good inter rater reliability (0.87). Conclusion: Performance of large language models in diabetic retinopathy patient consultations is model dependent. ChatGPT-5 demonstrated the best overall usability, combining faster responses, clearer structure, and higher factual accuracy. Other Chinese optimized models provided comparable professional information coverage but require improved accessibility and stability for safe patient facing use.
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.