Journal of ophthalmic & vision research · 2025
Utilizing ChatGPT-3.5 to Assist Ophthalmologists in Clinical Decision-making.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cayenne Samir, Penaloza Natalia, Chan Anne C, Tahashilder M I, Guiseppi Rodney C, Banaee Touka
Аннотация
PURPOSE: ChatGPT-3.5 has the potential to assist ophthalmologists by generating a differential diagnosis based on patient presentation.
METHODS: One hundred ocular pathologies were tested. Each pathology had two signs and two symptoms prompted into ChatGPT-3.5 through a clinical vignette template to generate a list of four preferentially ordered differential diagnoses, denoted as Method A. Thirty of the original 100 pathologies were further subcategorized into three groups of 10: cornea, retina, and neuro-ophthalmology. To assess whether additional clinical information affected the accuracy of results, these subcategories were again prompted into ChatGPT-3.5 with the same previous two signs and symptoms, along with additional risk factors of age, sex, and past medical history, denoted as Method B. A one-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to compare the accuracy between Methods A and B across each subcategory (significance indicated by P < 0.05).
RESULTS: ChatGPT-3.5 correctly diagnosed 51 out of 100 cases (51.00%) as its first differential diagnosis and 18 out of 100 cases (18.00%) as a differential other than its first diagnosis. However, 31 out of 100 cases (31.00%) were not included in the differential diagnosis list. Only the subcategory of neuro-ophthalmology showed a significant increase in accuracy (P = 0.01) when prompted with the additional risk factors (Method B) compared to only two signs and two symptoms (Method A).
CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that ChatGPT-3.5 may help assist clinicians in suggesting possible diagnoses based on varying complex clinical information. However, its accuracy is limited, and it cannot be utilized as a replacement for clinical decision-making.
METHODS: One hundred ocular pathologies were tested. Each pathology had two signs and two symptoms prompted into ChatGPT-3.5 through a clinical vignette template to generate a list of four preferentially ordered differential diagnoses, denoted as Method A. Thirty of the original 100 pathologies were further subcategorized into three groups of 10: cornea, retina, and neuro-ophthalmology. To assess whether additional clinical information affected the accuracy of results, these subcategories were again prompted into ChatGPT-3.5 with the same previous two signs and symptoms, along with additional risk factors of age, sex, and past medical history, denoted as Method B. A one-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to compare the accuracy between Methods A and B across each subcategory (significance indicated by P < 0.05).
RESULTS: ChatGPT-3.5 correctly diagnosed 51 out of 100 cases (51.00%) as its first differential diagnosis and 18 out of 100 cases (18.00%) as a differential other than its first diagnosis. However, 31 out of 100 cases (31.00%) were not included in the differential diagnosis list. Only the subcategory of neuro-ophthalmology showed a significant increase in accuracy (P = 0.01) when prompted with the additional risk factors (Method B) compared to only two signs and two symptoms (Method A).
CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that ChatGPT-3.5 may help assist clinicians in suggesting possible diagnoses based on varying complex clinical information. However, its accuracy is limited, and it cannot be utilized as a replacement for clinical decision-making.