ArticleOphthalmology science
Interpretation of Clinical Retinal Images Using an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Leveraging chatbots for enhanced decision-making: a comprehensive literature review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating Large Language Models in Ophthalmology: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Optical Coherence Tomography Biomarkers as Potential Predictors for Visual Function and Response to Intravitreal Therapy in Diabetic Macular Edema.Journal of vitreoretinal diseases · 2026Article
- Sequential sensitivity analysis of multimodal large language models for rare orbital disease detection.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- How Far Have Large Language Models Advanced in Ophthalmology? A Systematic Review of Their Development, Evaluation, and Readiness for Clinical Use.Research square · 2026Article
- Large language models for ophthalmic examination understanding: from information extraction to clinical decision support.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- DeepSeek-R1 vs OpenAI o1 for Ophthalmic Diagnoses and Management Plans.JAMA ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the clinical utility of multimodal large language models for detecting age-related macular degeneration from retinal imaging.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Multimodal Performance of GPT-4 in Complex Ophthalmology Cases.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance comparison between generative AI and physicians.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Performance of vision language models for optic disc swelling identification on fundus photographs.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Opportunities and Challenges of Chatbots in Ophthalmology: A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Utilizing Large Language Models in Ophthalmology: The Current Landscape and Challenges.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Review
- Large Language Models in Ophthalmology: A Review of Publications from Top Ophthalmology Journals.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the performance of Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer-4 in providing accurate diagnoses to retina teaching cases from OCTCases. Design: Cross-sectional study. Subjects: Retina teaching cases from OCTCases. Methods: We prompted a custom chatbot with 69 retina cases containing multimodal ophthalmic images, asking it to provide the most likely diagnosis. In a sensitivity analysis, we inputted increasing amounts of clinical information pertaining to each case until the chatbot achieved a correct diagnosis. We performed multivariable logistic regressions on Stata v17.0 (StataCorp LLC) to investigate associations between the amount of text-based information inputted per prompt and the odds of the chatbot achieving a correct diagnosis, adjusting for the laterality of cases, number of ophthalmic images inputted, and imaging modalities. Main Outcome Measures: Our primary outcome was the proportion of cases for which the chatbot was able to provide a correct diagnosis. Our secondary outcome was the chatbot's performance in relation to the amount of text-based information accompanying ophthalmic images. Results: Across 69 retina cases collectively containing 139 ophthalmic images, the chatbot was able to provide a definitive, correct diagnosis for 35 (50.7%) cases. The chatbot needed variable amounts of clinical information to achieve a correct diagnosis, where the entire patient description as presented by OCTCases was required for a majority of correctly diagnosed cases (23 of 35 cases, 65.7%). Relative to when the chatbot was only prompted with a patient's age and sex, the chatbot achieved a higher odds of a correct diagnosis when prompted with an entire patient description (odds ratio = 10.1, 95% confidence interval = 3.3-30.3, Conclusions: This custom chatbot was able to accurately diagnose approximately half of the retina cases requiring multimodal input, albeit relying heavily on text-based contextual information that accompanied ophthalmic images. The diagnostic ability of the chatbot in interpretation of multimodal imaging without text-based information is currently limited. The appropriate use of the chatbot in this setting is of utmost importance, given bioethical concerns. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.