ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Large Language Model-Generated Patient Education Materials in Pediatric Ophthalmology: A Scoping Review.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective management of pediatric ophthalmic conditions such as myopia, amblyopia, and strabismus depend on caregivers understanding patient education materials (PEMs). However, many existing resources exceed recommended grade 8 reading levels. This review maps AI-generated PEMs in pediatric ophthalmology, summarizes reported outcomes across key educational domains, and identifies barriers and opportunities for clinical integration. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus (January 2015-July 2025) identified studies evaluating LLM-generated PEMs in pediatric ophthalmology. Eligible studies evaluated artificial intelligence for pediatric ophthalmology patient education and reported at least one educational outcome. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and synthesized descriptively. Twenty studies (2023-2025) evaluated 3286 AI-generated materials across 14 LLMs. Readability was assessed in 17 studies; 59% (37/63) of study-level LLM evaluations exceeded recommended 8th-grade reading levels. ChatGPT-4o evaluations were more often acceptable (52%) than ChatGPT-3.5 evaluations (18%), although these were not head-to-head comparisons. Median understandability (PEMAT-U) exceeded adequacy thresholds (≥70%). Professional society materials were more accurate and higher quality but significantly less readable. No included study explicitly classified outputs as hallucinations under its applied assessment framework; however, incomplete treatment-related content was common. Only two studies assessed patient or caregiver perspectives. LLM-generated PEMs in pediatric ophthalmology are generally understandable and accessible but often exceed readability standards and lack actionable guidance. While professional society materials remain more accurate, LLMs offer scalable tools for generating patient-centered resources. Integrating LLMs into clinician-supervised workflows and emphasizing co-designed, multimodal education strategies may enhance accessibility and clinical safety.
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.