Multimodal Performance of GPT-4 in Complex Ophthalmology Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The integration of multimodal capabilities into GPT-4 represents a transformative leap for artificial intelligence in ophthalmology, yet its utility in scenarios requiring advanced reasoning remains underexplored. This study evaluates GPT-4’s multimodal performance on open-ended diagnostic and next-step reasoning tasks in complex ophthalmology cases, comparing it against human expertise. Methods: GPT-4 was assessed across three study arms: (1) text-based case details with figure descriptions, (2) cases with text and accompanying ophthalmic figures, and (3) cases with figures only (no figure descriptions). We compared GPT-4’s diagnostic and next-step accuracy across arms and benchmarked its performance against three board-certified ophthalmologists. Results: GPT-4 achieved 38.4% (95% CI [33.9%, 43.1%]) diagnostic accuracy and 57.8% (95% CI [52.8%, 62.2%]) next-step accuracy when prompted with figures without descriptions. Diagnostic accuracy declined significantly compared to text-only prompts (p = 0.007), though the next-step performance was similar (p = 0.140). Adding figure descriptions restored diagnostic accuracy (49.3%) to near parity with text-only prompts (p = 0.684). Using figures without descriptions, GPT-4’s diagnostic accuracy was comparable to two ophthalmologists (p = 0.30, p = 0.41) but fell short of the highest-performing ophthalmologist (p = 0.0004). For next-step accuracy, GPT-4 was similar to one ophthalmologist (p = 0.22) but underperformed relative to the other two (p = 0.0015, p = 0.0017). Conclusions: GPT-4’s diagnostic performance diminishes when relying solely on ophthalmic images without textual context, highlighting limitations in its current multimodal capabilities. Despite this, GPT-4 demonstrated comparable performance to at least one ophthalmologist on both diagnostic and next-step reasoning tasks, emphasizing its potential as an assistive tool. Future research should refine multimodal prompts and explore iterative or sequential prompting strategies to optimize AI-driven interpretation of complex ophthalmic datasets.
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 | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".