ArticleDigital health
Digital guides in eye care: Comparing AI model accuracy and reliability.
Article in Digital health. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate four large language models (LLMs) used for patient education in ophthalmology in terms of accuracy, reliability, and patient safety across different ophthalmic subspecialties. Methods: In this cross-sectional evaluation, a total of 50 frequently asked patient questions covering five ophthalmic subspecialties (strabismus/pediatric ophthalmology, oculoplastics, cataract and refractive surgery, retina, and dry eye) were included. All questions were submitted in a text-only format to ChatGPT o3 Mini High, Gemini 2.0 Pro, Claude-Sonnet 3.7, and LLaMA 3.1 405B. The generated responses were independently evaluated by five blinded ophthalmologists using a 10-point scale assessing accuracy, currency, informativeness/clarity, and patient safety. Potentially unsafe content was identified and categorized using a predefined structured error taxonomy. Results: Marked differences in performance were observed among the models. Mean scores were 3.44 for Gemini, 2.99 for ChatGPT, 2.48 for Claude, and 1.09 for LLaMA. Gemini demonstrated higher performance across most subspecialties, whereas in the retina subspecialty, ChatGPT and Claude generated comparatively stronger responses. Of the 200 evaluated responses, 19 (9.5%) contained potentially unsafe content, with the lowest proportion observed for Gemini and the highest for LLaMA. Conclusions: LLMs can generate useful responses for patient education in ophthalmology, but performance varies by model and subspecialty. Within this 50-question, text-only expert-rating framework, Gemini 2.0 Pro and ChatGPT o3 Mini High provided relatively higher accuracy and reliability in most areas, whereas LLaMA 3.1 405B lagged. Larger and clinically integrated evaluations, including direct assessment of patient understanding and behavior, are needed to define their safe use in practice.
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.