Evaluation of ophthalmic large language models: quantitative vs. qualitative methods.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Ting Fang Tan, Arun J Thirunavukarasu, Chrystie Quek, Daniel S W Ting
{"title":"Evaluation of ophthalmic large language models: quantitative vs. qualitative methods.","authors":"Ting Fang Tan, Arun J Thirunavukarasu, Chrystie Quek, Daniel S W Ting","doi":"10.1097/ICU.0000000000001171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Alongside the development of large language models (LLMs) and generative artificial intelligence (AI) applications across a diverse range of clinical applications in Ophthalmology, this review highlights the importance of evaluation of LLM applications by discussing evaluation metrics commonly adopted.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Generative AI applications have demonstrated encouraging performance in clinical applications of Ophthalmology. Beyond accuracy, evaluation in the form of quantitative and qualitative metrics facilitate a more nuanced assessment of LLM output responses. Several challenges limit evaluation including the lack of consensus on standardized benchmarks, and limited availability of robust and curated clinical datasets.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>This review outlines the spectrum of quantitative and qualitative evaluation metrics adopted in existing studies, highlights key challenges in LLM evaluation, to catalyze further work towards standardized and domain-specific evaluation. Robust evaluation to effectively validate clinical LLM applications is crucial in closing the gap towards clinical integration.</p>","PeriodicalId":50604,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000001171","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: Alongside the development of large language models (LLMs) and generative artificial intelligence (AI) applications across a diverse range of clinical applications in Ophthalmology, this review highlights the importance of evaluation of LLM applications by discussing evaluation metrics commonly adopted.

Recent findings: Generative AI applications have demonstrated encouraging performance in clinical applications of Ophthalmology. Beyond accuracy, evaluation in the form of quantitative and qualitative metrics facilitate a more nuanced assessment of LLM output responses. Several challenges limit evaluation including the lack of consensus on standardized benchmarks, and limited availability of robust and curated clinical datasets.

Summary: This review outlines the spectrum of quantitative and qualitative evaluation metrics adopted in existing studies, highlights key challenges in LLM evaluation, to catalyze further work towards standardized and domain-specific evaluation. Robust evaluation to effectively validate clinical LLM applications is crucial in closing the gap towards clinical integration.

眼科大语言模型的评价:定量与定性方法。
综述目的:随着大型语言模型(LLM)和生成式人工智能(AI)应用在眼科各种临床应用中的发展,本综述通过讨论常用的评估指标来强调评估LLM应用的重要性。最近的研究结果:生成式人工智能应用在眼科的临床应用中表现出令人鼓舞的表现。除了准确性之外,定量和定性指标形式的评估有助于对法学硕士输出响应进行更细致的评估。一些挑战限制了评估,包括缺乏对标准化基准的共识,以及可靠和精心策划的临床数据集的有限可用性。摘要:本综述概述了现有研究中采用的定量和定性评估指标的范围,强调了法学硕士评估中的关键挑战,以促进进一步标准化和特定领域评估的工作。有效验证临床法学硕士应用的稳健评估对于缩小临床整合的差距至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
5.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Current Opinion in Ophthalmology is an indispensable resource featuring key up-to-date and important advances in the field from around the world. With renowned guest editors for each section, every bimonthly issue of Current Opinion in Ophthalmology delivers a fresh insight into topics such as glaucoma, refractive surgery and corneal and external disorders. With ten sections in total, the journal provides a convenient and thorough review of the field and will be of interest to researchers, clinicians and other healthcare professionals alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信