ArticleJournal of racial and ethnic health disparities2026
Benchmarking Generative Artificial Intelligence for the Analysis of Racial and Gender Disparities in Academic Ophthalmology.
Article in Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used to analyze and interpret health disparities data, but its accuracy, analytical depth, and ability to recognize intersectional and structural inequities remain uncertain. This benchmarking study evaluated the performance of ChatGPT (GPT-5.2), Google Gemini 3, and Claude Sonnet 4.5 in analyzing an existing dataset on racial and gender representation in US academic ophthalmology.
methodsPublicly available Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster data for ophthalmology from 1966 to 2021 were analysed. No human subjects were recruited or randomized. Each AI model was prompted using a standardized query template to analyse demographic trends in academic rank, gender distribution, racial and ethnic composition, tenure status, and leadership representation. Outputs were systematically evaluated using a structured rubric assessing accuracy, interpretive depth, recognition of bias and intersectionality, statistical rigor, and recommendations, using the benchmark human-led study by Tao et al. (2024).
resultsAll three AI models identified the major trends previously reported in the benchmark study, including substantial faculty growth, increasing women representation, Asian faculty expansion, and persistent underrepresentation of groups underrepresented in medicine. ChatGPT provided the greatest statistical specificity, identifying women representation increasing by + 0.65 percentage points per year and women department chairs increasing by + 0.29 percentage points annually. Gemini emphasized structural tenure shifts, while Claude provided strong qualitative interpretation. Although Claude performed a race-by-gender analysis and ChatGPT examined gender representation by academic rank, none reproduced the specific intersectional framework and subgroup comparisons employed in the benchmark study.
conclusionsWhen benchmarked against a published human-led analysis, the three generative AI platforms reproduced broad demographic trends but varied in statistical rigour and interpretive depth. However, critical human oversight remains essential for nuanced intersectional and policy-relevant interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42842107What 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.