Ophthalmology science · 2026
Large Language Models Approximate Inter-Expert Agreement in Glaucoma Suspect and Glaucoma Classification from Multimodal Data.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Shean Ryan S, Mallapu Jayanth Kumar, Shah Tathya, Cohen Jasmine, Wang Derrick, Peng Micalla, Shaji Abhijith, Shan John, Wang Sophia, Do Jiun, Nguyen Van, Bolo Kyle, Xu Benjamin Y
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether publicly available large language models (LLMs), when provided cross-sectional multimodal clinical inputs, can classify glaucoma versus glaucoma suspect with diagnostic agreement comparable to fellowship-trained glaucoma specialists when benchmarked against consensus-derived reference standards.
DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study.
SUBJECTS AND CONTROLS: A total of 230 eyes from 131 consecutive participants evaluated at a tertiary academic glaucoma referral center in the United States between 2016 and 2022 were included. The eye was the unit of analysis. No separate external control group was used; comparisons were made against peer-derived consensus reference standards.
METHODS: Seven LLM configurations (GPT-5 Pro, GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Pro under two prompts, and Grok 2.2 under 1 prompt) were tested without task-specific training using multimodal inputs including age, sex, race, visual acuity, intraocular pressure, fundus photographs, OCT retinal nerve fiber layer reports, and visual field reports. Four peer-derived reference standards were constructed using a leave-one-out majority consensus approach among four fellowship-trained glaucoma specialists who independently graded the complete data.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Diagnostic agreement for classification as glaucoma suspect or glaucoma was assessed using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and Cohen's κ.
RESULTS: Among 230 eyes of 131 patients (72 women [55%]; 49 Asian, 10 Black, 56 Caucasian, 50 Hispanic, and 65 other), mean (standard deviation) age was 67.4 (13.8) years, and 43.5% to 56.5% of eyes were classified as glaucoma. Glaucoma specialist accuracy ranged from 71.3% to 83.9% (κ = 0.46-0.68). GPT-5 Pro (long prompt) achieved accuracies of 80.4% to 85.7% (κ = 0.61-0.71), and Gemini 3 Pro (long prompt) achieved accuracies of 80.9% to 84.3% (κ = 0.62-0.68), each achieving the highest accuracy in two reference sets. GPT-5.2 demonstrated intermediate performance; Grok 2.2 performed near chance. Agreement was highest for moderate-to-severe glaucoma and lower for glaucoma suspect and mild glaucoma.
CONCLUSIONS: Publicly available multimodal LLMs achieved diagnostic agreement comparable to inter-expert agreement among glaucoma specialists without task-specific training. These findings support further investigation of LLMs as scalable, standardized clinical decision-support tools in glaucoma care.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study.
SUBJECTS AND CONTROLS: A total of 230 eyes from 131 consecutive participants evaluated at a tertiary academic glaucoma referral center in the United States between 2016 and 2022 were included. The eye was the unit of analysis. No separate external control group was used; comparisons were made against peer-derived consensus reference standards.
METHODS: Seven LLM configurations (GPT-5 Pro, GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Pro under two prompts, and Grok 2.2 under 1 prompt) were tested without task-specific training using multimodal inputs including age, sex, race, visual acuity, intraocular pressure, fundus photographs, OCT retinal nerve fiber layer reports, and visual field reports. Four peer-derived reference standards were constructed using a leave-one-out majority consensus approach among four fellowship-trained glaucoma specialists who independently graded the complete data.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Diagnostic agreement for classification as glaucoma suspect or glaucoma was assessed using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and Cohen's κ.
RESULTS: Among 230 eyes of 131 patients (72 women [55%]; 49 Asian, 10 Black, 56 Caucasian, 50 Hispanic, and 65 other), mean (standard deviation) age was 67.4 (13.8) years, and 43.5% to 56.5% of eyes were classified as glaucoma. Glaucoma specialist accuracy ranged from 71.3% to 83.9% (κ = 0.46-0.68). GPT-5 Pro (long prompt) achieved accuracies of 80.4% to 85.7% (κ = 0.61-0.71), and Gemini 3 Pro (long prompt) achieved accuracies of 80.9% to 84.3% (κ = 0.62-0.68), each achieving the highest accuracy in two reference sets. GPT-5.2 demonstrated intermediate performance; Grok 2.2 performed near chance. Agreement was highest for moderate-to-severe glaucoma and lower for glaucoma suspect and mild glaucoma.
CONCLUSIONS: Publicly available multimodal LLMs achieved diagnostic agreement comparable to inter-expert agreement among glaucoma specialists without task-specific training. These findings support further investigation of LLMs as scalable, standardized clinical decision-support tools in glaucoma care.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.