Evidence mapPaperPMID 41601784Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2025

Making Chatbots more human: deep reasoning large language models in ophthalmology.

Xuanqiao Lin, Yizhou Yang, Yuecheng Ren

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Xuanqiao LinDepartment of Ophthalmology, Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yizhou Yang *Department of Ophthalmology, Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yuecheng Ren *Department of Ophthalmology, Jiaxing Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital Affiliated to Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in deep-reasoning large language models (LLMs)-including OpenAI's GPT series and open-source DeepSeek models-have expanded their potential applications in ophthalmology. In ophthalmology, image interpretation continues to rely primarily on conventional computer vision and vision language model pipelines, whereas text-based LLMs contribute to language-centric workflows, such as report interpretation, patient education drafting, and electronic health record (EHR) summarization. Multimodal systems that integrate visual inputs with reasoning have been explored in simulated or retrospective settings for tasks such as personalized planning. Although these approaches may enhance workflow efficiency and decision-making, their direct clinical benefits have not yet been established. Nevertheless, practical implementation remains challenging because of computational demands, privacy and bias considerations, and persistent issues with transparency and interpretability. Additionally, system congestion and inconsistent response times further complicate real-world clinical use. Therefore, future research should focus on addressing operational and ethical constraints, tailoring AI systems to ophthalmic workflows, and ensuring that such tools remain an assistive, equitable, and transparent partner in clinical decision-making. Thoughtful integration of deep reasoning models appears promising for ophthalmic practice, but prospective interventional studies are required before making any claims regarding patient outcomes.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceChatbotsclinical decision supportdeep reasoninglarge language modelsophthalmology

Identifiers

PMID41601784
PMCPMC12832687

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.