Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40114712›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science

Large Language Models in Ophthalmology: A Review of Publications from Top Ophthalmology Journals.

Akshay Prashant Agnihotri, Ines Doris Nagel, Jose Carlo M Artiaga, Ma Carmela B Guevarra, George Michael N Sosuan, Fritz Gerald P Kalaw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Comparing the performance of four mainstream large language models on medical literature review generation: a human expert evaluation in SMILE surgery.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Akshay Prashant AgnihotriJacobs Retina Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Ines Doris NagelJacobs Retina Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Jose Carlo M ArtiagaDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Philippine General Hospital, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila City, Philippines.
Ma Carmela B GuevarraDepartment of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts.
George Michael N SosuanDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Philippine General Hospital, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila City, Philippines.
Fritz Gerald P KalawJacobs Retina Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.

Funding

Bridge2AI:Salutogenesis Data Generation ProjectOT2OD032644 · OD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BAXTER, SALLY LIU, CHUTE, CHRISTOPHER G · 2022 to 2025
$32.7M
NIH HHS OT2 OD032644
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To review and evaluate the current literature on the application and impact of large language models (LLMs) in the field of ophthalmology, focusing on studies published in high-ranking ophthalmology journals. Design: This is a retrospective review of published articles. Participants: This study did not involve human participation. Methods: Articles published in the first quartile (Q1) of ophthalmology journals on Scimago Journal & Country Rank discussing different LLMs up to June 7, 2024, were reviewed, parsed, and analyzed. Main Outcome Measures: All available articles were parsed and analyzed, which included the article and author characteristics and data regarding the LLM used and its applications, focusing on its use in medical education, clinical assistance, research, and patient education. Results: There were 35 Q1-ranked journals identified, 19 of which contained articles discussing LLMs, with 101 articles eligible for review. One-third were original investigations (32%; 32/101), with an average of 5.3 authors per article. The United States (50.4%; 51/101) was the most represented country, followed by the United Kingdom (25.7%; 26/101) and Canada (16.8%; 17/101). ChatGPT was the most used LLM among the studies, with different versions discussed and compared. Large language model applications were discussed relevant to their implications in medical education, clinical assistance, research, and patient education. Conclusions: The numerous publications on the use of LLM in ophthalmology can provide valuable insights for stakeholders and consumers of these applications. Large language models present significant opportunities for advancement in ophthalmology, particularly in team science, education, clinical assistance, and research. Although LLMs show promise, they also show challenges such as performance inconsistencies, bias, and ethical concerns. The study emphasizes the need for ongoing artificial intelligence improvement, ethical guidelines, and multidisciplinary collaboration. Financial Disclosures: The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Indexed as

ChatbotsChatGPTGenerative artificial intelligenceLarge language models

Identifiers

PMID40114712
PMCPMC11925577

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.