ArticleCureus2025
AI Chatbots in Answering Questions Related to Ocular Oncology: A Comparative Study Between DeepSeek v3, ChatGPT-4o, and Gemini 2.0.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Review
- Comparative Performance of Gemini 3 Pro and GPT-5 Family Models on Ophthalmology Board-Style Questions.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Preparedness for generative AI adoption among Chinese cancer survivors: a multi-center cross-sectional survey study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Comparison of the performances of different updated generative artificial intelligence models on the Japanese National Dental Examination.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Comparing ChatGPT and DeepSeek for Assessment of Multiple-Choice Questions in Orthopedic Medical Education: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- AI in the Shadows: Unveiling the Strengths and Blind Spots of Medios AI Retinal Screening in Cancer Care.Cureus · 2025Article
- Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Conversational Platforms for Parental Queries on Antenatal Hydronephrosis: A Comparative Blinded Assessment.Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used in healthcare for information dissemination and clinical decision support. However, their reliability and applicability in subspecialties such as ocular oncology remain largely unassessed. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, completeness, readability, and real-world utility of three prominent AI chatbots, ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI, San Francisco, California, USA), DeepSeek v3 (DeepSeek, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China), and Gemini 2.0 (Google DeepMind, London, UK), in responding to clinically relevant questions related to ocular malignancies. Methods A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at a tertiary eye care institute in Northern India. Five clinical questions, covering key ocular oncologic conditions, were created and standardized by ocular oncology experts. These prompts were input into ChatGPT-4o, DeepSeek v3, and Gemini 2.0. Responses were independently evaluated using a structured proforma assessing correctness, completeness, readability (Flesch-Kincaid score, word count, sentence count), presence of irrelevant data, applicability in the Indian healthcare setting, and reliability. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA statistical tests. Results All three chatbots demonstrated comparable correctness scores (mean 3.4, SD 0.49). However, four out of five responses from each chatbot were deemed incomplete. DeepSeek v3 provided the most verbose and readable answers (mean 533.8 words; Flesch score 38.0), while ChatGPT-4o generated the shortest but more clinically reliable responses (mean reliability 3.2). Gemini 2.0 exhibited the greatest variability in length and structure. No irrelevant content was observed in any chatbot responses. Only 2/5 responses from ChatGPT-4o and 1/5 from each of the other two were directly applicable to Indian clinical practice. Conclusion While AI chatbots can offer factually accurate responses to ocular oncology-related queries, they often fall short in completeness and clinical applicability. ChatGPT-4o showed the most balanced performance, though regional customization and expert oversight remain essential. Current models are not yet suitable for unsupervised use in high-stakes clinical scenarios.
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.