ChatGPT in Ophthalmology: Past, Present, and Future.

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Israel Medical Association Journal Pub Date : 2026-04-01
Amit Toledano, Ehud Raz Gatt, Asaf Laks, Biana Dubinsky-Pertzov, Adi Einan-Lifshitz, Eran Pras, Asaf Shemer
{"title":"ChatGPT in Ophthalmology: Past, Present, and Future.","authors":"Amit Toledano, Ehud Raz Gatt, Asaf Laks, Biana Dubinsky-Pertzov, Adi Einan-Lifshitz, Eran Pras, Asaf Shemer","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rapid evolution of large language models warrants updated benchmarking in ophthalmology to determine whether newer versions offer clinically meaningful improvements over earlier models and human comparators.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-5 in ophthalmic cases and to compare it with previously reported results of ChatGPT-3.5, residents, and specialists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study was conducted in one academic tertiary medical center. We reviewed data of patients admitted to the ophthalmology department from June 2022 to January 2023. We then created two clinical cases for each patient. The first was according to medical history alone (Hx). The second added the clinical examination (Hx and Ex). For each case, we asked for the three most likely diagnoses from ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-5. We then compared the accuracy rates (at least one correct diagnosis) with previous results of ChatGPT-3.5, residents, and specialists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 63 cases were analyzed, first using history alone and then with examination findings. Based on history alone, GPT-5 and GPT-4o correctly identified 73% and 70% of cases, respectively, outperforming GPT-3.5 (54%, P < 0.05) and approaching the accuracy of residents (75%) and attending physicians (71%, P < 0.05). When physical examination was included, diagnostic accuracy rose to 94% for GPT-5 and 89% for GPT-4o, surpassing GPT-3.5 (68%, P < 0.05) and closely matching or exceeding human performance (residents 94%, attendings 87%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-5 significantly outperformed GPT-3.5 and achieved diagnostic accuracy similar or even higher to clinicians in diagnosing ophthalmology cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":50268,"journal":{"name":"Israel Medical Association Journal","volume":"28 4","pages":"232-236"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Israel Medical Association Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The rapid evolution of large language models warrants updated benchmarking in ophthalmology to determine whether newer versions offer clinically meaningful improvements over earlier models and human comparators.

Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-5 in ophthalmic cases and to compare it with previously reported results of ChatGPT-3.5, residents, and specialists.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in one academic tertiary medical center. We reviewed data of patients admitted to the ophthalmology department from June 2022 to January 2023. We then created two clinical cases for each patient. The first was according to medical history alone (Hx). The second added the clinical examination (Hx and Ex). For each case, we asked for the three most likely diagnoses from ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-5. We then compared the accuracy rates (at least one correct diagnosis) with previous results of ChatGPT-3.5, residents, and specialists.

Results: A total of 63 cases were analyzed, first using history alone and then with examination findings. Based on history alone, GPT-5 and GPT-4o correctly identified 73% and 70% of cases, respectively, outperforming GPT-3.5 (54%, P < 0.05) and approaching the accuracy of residents (75%) and attending physicians (71%, P < 0.05). When physical examination was included, diagnostic accuracy rose to 94% for GPT-5 and 89% for GPT-4o, surpassing GPT-3.5 (68%, P < 0.05) and closely matching or exceeding human performance (residents 94%, attendings 87%).

Conclusions: ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-5 significantly outperformed GPT-3.5 and achieved diagnostic accuracy similar or even higher to clinicians in diagnosing ophthalmology cases.

眼科学中的ChatGPT:过去,现在和未来。
背景:大型语言模型的快速发展需要更新眼科基准,以确定新版本是否比早期模型和人类比较物提供临床有意义的改进。目的:评估chatgpt - 40和ChatGPT-5在眼科病例中的诊断准确性,并将其与之前报道的ChatGPT-3.5、住院医师和专家的结果进行比较。方法:回顾性队列研究在某学术三级医疗中心进行。我们回顾了2022年6月至2023年1月眼科收治的患者数据。然后,我们为每个患者创建两个临床病例。第一种是仅根据病史(Hx)。第二组增加临床检查(Hx和Ex)。对于每个病例,我们要求从chatgpt - 40和ChatGPT-5中获得三种最可能的诊断。然后,我们将准确率(至少一个正确诊断)与ChatGPT-3.5、住院医师和专家的先前结果进行比较。结果:共分析63例患者,先单独使用病史,再结合检查结果。仅基于病史,GPT-5和gpt - 40分别正确率为73%和70%,优于GPT-3.5 (54%, P < 0.05),接近住院医师(75%)和主治医师(71%,P < 0.05)的正确率。当包括体格检查时,GPT-5的诊断准确率上升到94%,gpt - 40的诊断准确率上升到89%,超过了GPT-3.5 (68%, P < 0.05),并接近或超过了人类的表现(住院医生94%,主治医生87%)。结论:chatgpt - 40和ChatGPT-5在诊断眼科病例时明显优于GPT-3.5,诊断准确率与临床医生相近甚至更高。
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
Israel Medical Association Journal
Israel Medical Association Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
12.50%
发文量
54
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Israel Medical Association Journal (IMAJ), representing medical sciences and medicine in Israel, is published in English by the Israel Medical Association. The Israel Medical Association Journal (IMAJ) was initiated in 1999.
×
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
小红书