ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2026
Assessing Guideline Knowledge Alignment of Large Language Models in Ophthalmology: A Preclinical Benchmarking Study on KLEx Evidence-Based Guidelines.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing Guideline Knowledge Alignment of Large Language Models in Ophthalmology: A Preclinical Benchmarking Study on KLEx Evidence-Based Guidelines.Journal of ophthalmology · 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
Purpose: To evaluate the guideline knowledge alignment of two large language models (LLMs), GPT-5.5 Instant and DeepSeek-V4, and to determine their preclinical reliability as reference tools in refractive surgery. Methods: Using the 38 evidence-based recommendations of the international keratorefractive lenticule extraction (KLEx) guidelines as the gold standard, both LLMs were evaluated in their default configurations. Two ophthalmologists independently assessed the clinical safety and medical accuracy of the model responses using a 5-point Likert scale (1-5 points). Agreement between each model's recommendation strength and the guideline was quantified by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), structural reliability by the DISCERN scale, and readability by the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) indices. Results: Likert ratings did not differ between GPT-5.5 Instant (4.96 ± 0.206) and DeepSeek-V4 (4.89 ± 0.385; Conclusion: Both models aligned closely with the guidelines, with significant concordance in GRADE-based recommendation strength. They may serve as preclinical reference tools in refractive surgery but not as a substitute for specialist judgment.
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.