ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2026
Large Language Models in Ophthalmology: A Bibliographic Analysis.
Article in Turkish journal of 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the distribution of research on the use of large language models (LLMs) in ophthalmology through a bibliographic analysis of articles retrieved from PubMed through November 2024. Studies were categorized into four main areas of LLM application: clinical decision-making (further divided according to subspecialties), education, patient interactions, and miscellaneous applications. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the distribution of studies by ophthalmic subspecialty, geographical region, journal quality, and author characteristics, including gender and scholarly impact (h-index and i10-index). The findings revealed that clinical decision-making was the most common application (43.7%), with the majority of studies in this subgroup focusing on the retina (39.5%). Geographically, most of the research originated from North America (48.3%), followed by Asia (29.9%) and Europe (20.7%). Most studies were published in high-impact journals (Q1 journals: 74.7%), particularly for those related to clinical decision-making in retina (80.0%), glaucoma (100%), and multiple subspecialties (87.5%). Gender disparities were evident across all author roles, with female authors accounting for only 29.9% of first authors, 25.3% of last authors, and 26.4% of corresponding authors. The results suggest a need for greater diversity in terms of gender and geographic representation in LLM research in ophthalmology to promote inclusive progress in the field.
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.