ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Benchmarking publicly accessible large language models for high-myopia multiple-choice question generation in digital ophthalmic education and public health training.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring large language models as a prescription decision support tool for rational antibiotic use: A dual-framework analysis using standardized examinations and real-world clinical cases.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models for diabetic retinopathy multiple-choice question generation in clinical ophthalmic education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Association between peripheral retinal lesions and ocular biometric parameters in adults with mild-to-moderate myopia attending a refractive surgery clinic.Frontiers in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital tools are reshaping public health education and training, yet evidence on whether large language models (LLMs) can generate specialist ophthalmic teaching materials remains limited. High myopia (HM), a vision-threatening condition with long-term management needs and public health relevance, provides a suitable setting for evaluating this capability. This study compared five LLMs in generating HM-related multiple-choice questions (MCQs) for ophthalmic education. Methods: Five LLMs (ChatGPT-5.4, Gemini 3, DeepSeek, Kimi K2.5, and Doubao) completed 60 predefined HM MCQ generation tasks each, yielding 300 MCQs. A standardized blueprint covered four domains: basic knowledge, clinical cases, diagnosis and treatment decision-making, and screening/follow-up management. Objective evaluation included structural completeness, format compliance, keyed-answer accuracy, output features, and response time. Two ophthalmology experts rated six domains using 5-point Likert scales, and Spearman analyses examined associations among text features, response time, and expert ratings. Results: All models achieved 100.0% initial structural acceptability, structural completeness, and format compliance. Keyed-answer accuracy was highest for ChatGPT-5.4 and Gemini 3 (both 100.0%), followed by DeepSeek (98.3%) and Kimi K2.5 and Doubao (both 95.0%). Significant between-model differences were observed across all output features and response time (all Conclusion: LLMs can reliably generate structurally valid HM-related MCQs under standardized Chinese prompting conditions. Their value may lie in supporting digital ophthalmic education and public health training, although expert oversight remains necessary because meaningful differences persist in factual accuracy, distractor quality, and direct usability.
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.