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.

Comparison of Ophthalmologist and AI Chatbot Responses to Online Patient Eye Care Questions

Development and Evaluation of Aeyeconsult: A Novel Ophthalmology Chatbot Leveraging Verified Textbook Knowledge and GPT-4

Evaluating the Accuracy of ChatGPT and Google BARD in Fielding Oculoplastic Patient Queries: A Comparative Study on Artificial versus Human Intelligence

Physician and AI Responses to Cancer Questions

The use of artificial intelligence based chat bots in ophthalmology triage

Accuracy of an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot’s Interpretation of Clinical Ophthalmic Images

Dr. Google vs. Dr. ChatGPT: Exploring the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology by Comparing the Accuracy, Safety, and Readability of Responses to Frequently Asked Patient Questions Regarding Cataracts and Cataract Surgery

Comparison of artificial intelligence large language model chatbots in answering frequently asked questions in anaesthesia

Evaluation and Comparison of Ophthalmic Scientific Abstracts and References by Current Artificial Intelligence Chatbots

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

Accuracy of Prospective Assessments of 4 Large Language Model Chatbot Responses to Patient Questions About Emergency Care: Experimental Comparative Study

Personalized Care in Eye Health: Exploring Opportunities, Challenges, and the Road Ahead for Chatbots

Artificial intelligence chatbot interpretation of ophthalmic multimodal imaging cases

Attitudes of Medical Workers in China Toward Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology: a Comparative Survey.

A Blinded Comparison of Three Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbots for Orthopaedic Surgery Therapeutic Questions

A Comparative Analysis of Responses of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Special Needs Dentistry

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

Comparative Analysis of Accuracy, Readability, Sentiment, and Actionability: Artificial Intelligence Chatbots (ChatGPT and Google Gemini) versus Traditional Patient Information Leaflets for Local Anesthesia in Eye Surgery

Evaluating the Artificial Intelligence Performance Growth in Ophthalmic Knowledge

Chatbots talk Strabismus: Can AI become the new patient Educator?

Artificial intelligence chatbot vs pathology faculty and residents: Real-world clinical questions from a genitourinary treatment planning conference