Abstract:Importance Large language models (LLMs) are revolutionizing medical diagnosis and treatment, offering unprecedented accuracy and ease surpassing conventional search engines. Their integration into medical assistance programs will become pivotal for ophthalmologists as an adjunct for practicing evidence-based medicine. Therefore, the diagnostic and treatment accuracy of LLM-generated responses compared with fellowship-trained ophthalmologists can help assess their accuracy and validate their potential utility in ophthalmic subspecialties. Objective To compare the diagnostic accuracy and comprehensiveness of responses from an LLM chatbot with those of fellowship-trained glaucoma and retina specialists on ophthalmological questions and real patient case management. Design, Setting, and Participants This comparative cross-sectional study recruited 15 participants aged 31 to 67 years, including 12 attending physicians and 3 senior trainees, from eye clinics affiliated with the Department of Ophthalmology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. Glaucoma and retina questions (10 of each type) were randomly selected from the American Academy of Ophthalmology’s Commonly Asked Questions. Deidentified glaucoma and retinal cases (10 of each type) were randomly selected from ophthalmology patients seen at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai–affiliated clinics. The LLM used was GPT-4 (version dated May 12, 2023). Data were collected from June to August 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures Responses were assessed via a Likert scale for medical accuracy and completeness. Statistical analysis involved the Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by pairwise comparison. Results The combined question-case mean rank for accuracy was 506.2 for the LLM chatbot and 403.4 for glaucoma specialists (n = 831; Mann-Whitney U = 27976.5; P &lt; .001), and the mean rank for completeness was 528.3 and 398.7, respectively (n = 828; Mann-Whitney U = 25218.5; P &lt; .001). The mean rank for accuracy was 235.3 for the LLM chatbot and 216.1 for retina specialists (n = 440; Mann-Whitney U = 15518.0; P = .17), and the mean rank for completeness was 258.3 and 208.7, respectively (n = 439; Mann-Whitney U = 13123.5; P = .005). The Dunn test revealed a significant difference between all pairwise comparisons, except specialist vs trainee in rating chatbot completeness. The overall pairwise comparisons showed that both trainees and specialists rated the chatbot’s accuracy and completeness more favorably than those of their specialist counterparts, with specialists noting a significant difference in the chatbot’s accuracy ( z = 3.23; P = .007) and completeness ( z = 5.86; P &lt; .001). Conclusions and Relevance This study accentuates the comparative proficiency of LLM chatbots in diagnostic accuracy and completeness compared with fellowship-trained ophthalmologists in various clinical scenarios. The LLM chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy, substantiating its role as a promising diagnostic adjunct in ophthalmology.

Accuracy of large language models in answering ophthalmology board-style questions: A meta-analysis

Evaluating multiple large language models in pediatric ophthalmology

Evaluating Large Language Models in Ophthalmology

Assessment of a Large Language Model’s Responses to Questions and Cases About Glaucoma and Retina Management

Large Language Models in Pathology: A Comparative Study on Multiple Choice Question Performance with Pathology Trainees

Performance of Publicly Available Large Language Models on Internal Medicine Board-style Questions

Large language models in pathology: A comparative study of ChatGPT and bard with pathology trainees on multiple-choice questions

Comparative Assessment of Otolaryngology Knowledge Among Large Language Models

Performance of large language models at the MRCS Part A: a tool for medical education?

Performance of a Large Language Model on Japanese Emergency Medicine Board Certification Examinations

Performance of Popular Large Language Models in Glaucoma Patient Education: a Randomized Controlled Study

Benchmarking Large Language Models' Performances for Myopia Care: a Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, and Google Bard.

The Comparative Diagnostic Capability of Large Language Models in Otolaryngology

Large language models encode medical oncology knowledge: Performance on the ASCO and ESMO examination questions.

Evaluating Chatbot responses to patient questions in the field of glaucoma

Review of emerging trends and projection of future developments in large language models research in ophthalmology

Performance of Large Language Models on a Neurology Board-Style Examination

How Large Language Models Perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination: A Systematic Review

Performance of Large Language Models (ChatGPT, Bing Search, and Google Bard) in Solving Case Vignettes in Physiology

Performance of Advanced Large Language Models (GPT-4o, GPT-4, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude 3 Opus) on Japanese Medical Licensing Examination: A Comparative Study