Abstract:Purpose: Large language models such as ChatGPT-3.5 are often used by the public to answer questions related to daily life, including health advice. This study evaluated the responses of ChatGPT-3.5 in answering patient-centered frequently asked questions (FAQs) relevant in glaucoma clinical practice. Design: Prospective cross-sectional survey. Participants: Expert graders. Methods: Twelve experts across a range of clinical, education, and research practices in optometry and ophthalmology. Over 200 patient-centric FAQs from authoritative professional society, hospital and advocacy websites were distilled and filtered into 40 questions across 4 themes: definition and risk factors, diagnosis and testing, lifestyle and other accompanying conditions, and treatment and follow-up. The questions were individually input into ChatGPT-3.5 to generate responses. The responses were graded by the 12 experts individually. Main outcome measures: A 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) was used to grade ChatGPT-3.5 responses across 4 domains: coherency, factuality, comprehensiveness, and safety. Results: Across all themes and domains, median scores were all 4 ("agree"). Comprehensiveness had the lowest scores across domains (mean 3.7 ± 0.9), followed by factuality (mean 3.9 ± 0.9) and coherency and safety (mean 4.1 ± 0.8 for both). Examination of the individual 40 questions showed that 8 (20%), 17 (42.5%), 24 (60%), and 8 (20%) of the questions had average scores below 4 (i.e., below "agree") for the coherency, factuality, comprehensiveness, and safety domains, respectively. Free-text comments by the experts highlighted omissions of facts and comprehensiveness (e.g., secondary glaucoma) and remarked on the vagueness of some responses (i.e., that the response did not account for individual patient circumstances). Conclusions: ChatGPT-3.5 responses to FAQs in glaucoma were generally agreeable in terms of coherency, factuality, comprehensiveness, and safety. However, areas of weakness were identified, precluding recommendations for routine use to provide patients with tailored counseling in glaucoma, especially with respect to development of glaucoma and its management. Financial disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Errors in Abstract, Methods, and Additional Contributions

Error in Study Type

Errors in Abstract, Methods, Figure 2, and Supplement 1

Errors in Author Degrees and Affiliations

Errors in Table, Figure, and Body of the Article

Erratum: Nurse Practitioner Students' Knowledge Assessment and Perceived Preparedness to Triage Ophthalmology Complaints in a Primary Care Setting: An Educational Intervention

Error in Results and Additional Information Section Added to End Matter

Errors in Discussion Section and Supplement

Error in Author Name, Figure 3A and C, and Table 1

Errors in Methods and Results Sections, Figure, Table 1, and Supplement 1

Erratum: Errors in Introduction and Discussion

Erratum: The MOSAIC Study: A Mixed-Methods Study of the Clinical, Emotional, and Financial Burden of Geographic Atrophy Among Patients and Caregivers in the US [Corrigendum]

Errors in Abstract, Results, and Tables

Error in Captions of Figures 1 and 2

Correction: Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Erratum to maintaining excellent outcomes: the impact of age cutoff reclassification on reduced therapy for neuroblastoma patients

Errors in Key Points and Abstract

Evaluation of Reporting Quality of Glaucoma Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts: Current Status and Future Perspectives

Erratum to "From goal to outcome: Analyzing the progression of biomedical sciences PhD careers in a longitudinal study using an expanded taxonomy"

ChatGPT for Addressing Patient-centered Frequently Asked Questions in Glaucoma Clinical Practice

Erratum: Error in Subtitle