ChatGPT and retinal disease: a cross-sectional study on AI comprehension of clinical guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) large language model, ChatGPT (version 4.0), for common retinal diseases, in accordance with the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Pattern (PPP) guidelines. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey study design was employed to compare the responses made by ChatGPT to established clinical guidelines. PARTICIPANTS: Responses by the AI were reviewed by a panel of three vitreoretinal specialists for evaluation. METHODS: To investigate ChatGPT's comprehension of clinical guidelines, we designed 130 questions covering a broad spectrum of topics within 12 AAO PPP domains of retinal disease These questions were crafted to encompass diagnostic criteria, treatment guidelines, and management strategies, including both medical and surgical aspects of retinal care. A panel of 3 retinal specialists independently evaluated responses on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 based on their relevance, accuracy, and adherence to AAO PPP guidelines. Response readability was evaluated using Flesch Readability Ease and Flesch-Kincaid grade level scores. RESULTS: ChatGPT achieved an overall average score of 4.9/5.0, suggesting high alignment with the AAO PPP guidelines. Scores varied across domains, with the lowest in the surgical management of disease. The responses had a low reading ease score and required a college-to-graduate level of comprehension. Identified errors were related to diagnostic criteria, treatment options, and methodological procedures. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT 4.0 demonstrated significant potential in generating guideline-concordant responses, particularly for common medical retinal diseases. However, its performance slightly decreased in surgical retina, highlighting the ongoing need for clinician input, further model refinement, and improved comprehensibility.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".