Trial reportInternational ophthalmology2026
Evaluation of a cornea-specialized large language model for diagnostic and management accuracy in complex corneal cases.
Trial report in International 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether a cornea-specialized large language model (LLM) enhanced with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves clinicians' diagnostic and management accuracy in complex corneal cases compared to a general-purpose GPT-4o model and unaided clinician performance.
methodsThis prospective, randomized, masked evaluation study involved three cornea trainees who each independently reviewed 39 real-world corneal cases under three experimental conditions: unaided, GPT-4o-assisted, and assisted by a cornea-specialized GPT-4o model. The cornea-specialized model was constructed by embedding over 200 publicly available Wikipedia articles into GPT-4o's RAG framework. Participants provided open-ended diagnoses and selected the next-step management options (multiple choice). They were allowed up to three GPT-4o queries per case, and the AI-assisted arms were randomized to minimize bias. Accuracy for both tasks was compared against expert reference standards using McNemar's test.
resultsDiagnostic accuracy was 48.7%, 20.5%, and 38.5% unaided, improving to 69.2%, 46.2%, and 59.0% with general GPT-4o (p<0.04). The cornea-specialized GPT-4o further improved accuracy to 71.8%, 48.7%, and 74.4%, with improvements over unaided performance for all clinicians (p<0.01). For next-step decisions, unaided accuracy was 76.9%, 87.2%, and 59.0%. With the specialized model, Ophthalmologist 3 improved to 71.8% (p<0.05), Ophthalmologist 1 remained high at 82.1%, and Ophthalmologist 2 declined to 64.1% (p<0.05).
conclusionsA cornea-specialized LLM enhanced with RAG improved diagnostic accuracy in complex corneal cases, particularly among clinicians with lower baseline performance. Effects on management accuracy were inconsistent. Future studies should explore the use of open-ended management tasks and examine whether smaller, curated retrieval corpora yield better model performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42684491What 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.