Evaluating the Performance of ChatGPT in Ophthalmology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PurposeFoundation models are a novel type of artificial intelligence algorithms, in which models are pretrained at scale on unannotated data and fine-tuned for a myriad of downstream tasks, such as generating text. This study assessed the accuracy of ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM), in the ophthalmology question-answering space.DesignEvaluation of diagnostic test or technology.ParticipantsChatGPT is a publicly available LLM.MethodsWe tested 2 versions of ChatGPT (January 9 “legacy” and ChatGPT Plus) on 2 popular multiple choice question banks commonly used to prepare for the high-stakes Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program (OKAP) examination. We generated two 260-question simulated exams from the Basic and Clinical Science Course (BCSC) Self-Assessment Program and the OphthoQuestions online question bank. We carried out logistic regression to determine the effect of the examination section, cognitive level, and difficulty index on answer accuracy. We also performed a post hoc analysis using Tukey’s test to decide if there were meaningful differences between the tested subspecialties.Main Outcome MeasuresWe reported the accuracy of ChatGPT for each examination section in percentage correct by comparing ChatGPT’s outputs with the answer key provided by the question banks. We presented logistic regression results with a likelihood ratio (LR) chi-square. We considered differences between examination sections statistically significant at a P value of < 0.05.ResultsThe legacy model achieved 55.8% accuracy on the BCSC set and 42.7% on the OphthoQuestions set. With ChatGPT Plus, accuracy increased to 59.4% ± 0.6% and 49.2% ± 1.0%, respectively. Accuracy improved with easier questions when controlling for the examination section and cognitive level. Logistic regression analysis of the legacy model showed that the examination section (LR, 27.57; P = 0.006) followed by question difficulty (LR, 24.05; P < 0.001) were most predictive of ChatGPT’s answer accuracy. Although the legacy model performed best in general medicine and worst in neuro-ophthalmology (P < 0.001) and ocular pathology (P = 0.029), similar post hoc findings were not seen with ChatGPT Plus, suggesting more consistent results across examination sections.ConclusionChatGPT has encouraging performance on a simulated OKAP examination. Specializing LLMs through domain-specific pretraining may be necessary to improve their performance in ophthalmic subspecialties.Financial Disclosure(s)Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. Foundation models are a novel type of artificial intelligence algorithms, in which models are pretrained at scale on unannotated data and fine-tuned for a myriad of downstream tasks, such as generating text. This study assessed the accuracy of ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM), in the ophthalmology question-answering space. Evaluation of diagnostic test or technology. ChatGPT is a publicly available LLM. We tested 2 versions of ChatGPT (January 9 “legacy” and ChatGPT Plus) on 2 popular multiple choice question banks commonly used to prepare for the high-stakes Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program (OKAP) examination. We generated two 260-question simulated exams from the Basic and Clinical Science Course (BCSC) Self-Assessment Program and the OphthoQuestions online question bank. We carried out logistic regression to determine the effect of the examination section, cognitive level, and difficulty index on answer accuracy. We also performed a post hoc analysis using Tukey’s test to decide if there were meaningful differences between the tested subspecialties. We reported the accuracy of ChatGPT for each examination section in percentage correct by comparing ChatGPT’s outputs with the answer key provided by the question banks. We presented logistic regression results with a likelihood ratio (LR) chi-square. We considered differences between examination sections statistically significant at a P value of < 0.05. The legacy model achieved 55.8% accuracy on the BCSC set and 42.7% on the OphthoQuestions set. With ChatGPT Plus, accuracy increased to 59.4% ± 0.6% and 49.2% ± 1.0%, respectively. Accuracy improved with easier questions when controlling for the examination section and cognitive level. Logistic regression analysis of the legacy model showed that the examination section (LR, 27.57; P = 0.006) followed by question difficulty (LR, 24.05; P < 0.001) were most predictive of ChatGPT’s answer accuracy. Although the legacy model performed best in general medicine and worst in neuro-ophthalmology (P < 0.001) and ocular pathology (P = 0.029), similar post hoc findings were not seen with ChatGPT Plus, suggesting more consistent results across examination sections. ChatGPT has encouraging performance on a simulated OKAP examination. Specializing LLMs through domain-specific pretraining may be necessary to improve their performance in ophthalmic subspecialties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it