ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Performance of Large Language Models in Ophthalmology Referral Triage.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the classification accuracy and consistency of five advanced language model-based systems (LLMs), ChatGPT 4o, ChatGPT 5.1, Perplexity Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Claude Opus 4.1, in classifying real-world Portuguese ophthalmology referral vignettes into symptom-based categories, and to assess the effect of supervised in-context learning on model performance. Methods A total of 3,831 real-world, anonymized ophthalmology referral vignettes written in Portuguese and collected between January and May 2023 were submitted to each system across three independent runs. In phase one, models classified referrals into one of 16 predefined symptom-based categories using a zero-shot prompting strategy. In phase two, each system was exposed to 957 labeled examples (~20% of the dataset) through in-context learning before repeating the task. Classification accuracy, consistency, and Fleiss' kappa agreement were calculated, with additional analysis by symptom category. Results Baseline classification accuracy averaged 68.7% across models, improving to 73.4% post exposure. ChatGPT 5.1 achieved the highest peak accuracy (79.5%), while ChatGPT 4o showed the largest consistency gain (from 66.8% to 93.8%) and a net improvement in 933 cases (p < 0.001). Performance exceeded 90% for common referral categories, such as diabetic screening and chronic visual loss, but was lower for rare or ambiguous complaints. Inter-run agreement, measured by Fleiss' kappa, ranged from moderate to substantial across models (κ = 0.462-0.801), with the highest agreement observed for ChatGPT 4o. Conclusions Advanced LLMs demonstrated strong performance in interpreting real-world Portuguese-language ophthalmology referrals, with meaningful gains in accuracy and consistency achieved through limited supervised in-context exposure. Performance was lower for rare or ambiguous referral categories. Despite this limitation, these findings support the potential role of LLMs as scalable, low-cost triage aids, provided that human oversight and further clinical validation are ensured prior to deployment.
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.