ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Application of large language models in clinical decision-making for dry eye disease.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the diagnostic, classification, and treatment decision-making performance of large language models (LLMs) in dry eye disease (DED) and compare their performance with that of junior ophthalmologists to assess their feasibility as clinical support tools.
methodsOne hundred standardized DED cases from Fuzhou University Affiliated Provincial Hospital (Aug 2023-Aug 2025) were analyzed. Four LLMs (ChatGPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and ERNIE Bot-4.5-turbo) underwent an initial 20-item test with a 95% accuracy threshold. Only models meeting this criterion advanced to case-based evaluation. Diagnostic and therapeutic outputs were rated by senior ophthalmologists using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and a clinical safety score. Meanwhile, the response times of both the LLMs and the junior ophthalmologists were recorded to evaluate their respective efficiency.
resultsChatGPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, and Gemini-2.5-Pro met the screening threshold. In determining treatment necessity, the accuracies of the LLMs (96-99%) were comparable to those of junior ophthalmologists (97%). For DED classification, DeepSeek-V3 achieved the highest accuracy (92%) and agreement with experts (kappa = 0.80), outperforming ChatGPT-4o and junior ophthalmologists (71%, kappa ≈ 0.53; p < 0.01). Gemini-2.5-Pro showed strong performance (accuracy 89%), the highest GQS (4.87 ± 0.37), and the best safety rating, with 89% of its outputs rated as "good". The decision efficiency of the LLMs was significantly higher (p ≤ 0.001), with response times (16-36 s) much shorter than those of junior ophthalmologists (315 ± 57 s).
conclusionsGemini-2.5-Pro and DeepSeek-V3 demonstrated high accuracy, safety, and efficiency in case-based DED management, showing strong potential as auxiliary tools to enhance clinical decision-making and support less experienced clinicians.
trial registrationNot applicable. This study is a retrospective observational study and does not involve any intervention requiring trial registration.
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.