{"title":"Evaluation of Large Language Model-Generated Recommendations in Glaucoma Surgical Decision-Making.","authors":"Müge Toprak, Büşra Yılmaz Tuğan, Nurşen Yüksel","doi":"10.1080/08820538.2026.2725223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the utility, rationality, and safety of glaucoma surgery recommendations generated by three prominent large language models (LLMs) - ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Gemini - when applied to real-world clinical scenarios.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective records from a tertiary hospital were converted into standardized scenarios and stratified into \"primary\" and \"complex\" glaucoma groups. Each LLM was prompted to suggest a single surgical approach and provide a rationale. A blinded team of glaucoma specialists evaluated the outputs based on six criteria: appropriateness, rationale quality, specificity, adherence to guidelines, feasibility, and safety risk, using a normalized 0-100 scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median overall quality scores across all cases were 80.7 for ChatGPT, 80.7 for Copilot, and 82.7 for Gemini, showing no statistically significant difference in general performance (<i>p</i> = .367). However, case complexity significantly affected performance. For Gemini, appropriateness and rationale quality scores dropped significantly in complex cases and were accompanied by a statistically significant increase in safety risk (<i>p</i> = .009). Although ChatGPT and Copilot demonstrated more stability across groups, their rationale quality was significantly lower in complex scenarios than in primary ones (<i>p</i> = .014 and <0.001, respectively). Pairwise analyses revealed that ChatGPT offered superior rationale quality compared to Copilot, while Gemini exhibited higher specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LLM-based chatbots can provide acceptable surgical guidance for straightforward primary surgical cases, but their utility is limited in high-risk or complex clinical settings. The observed deficiencies in rationale and increased safety risks in complex cases suggest that LLMs should be integrated as auxiliary decision-support tools under expert supervision rather than used as autonomous decision-makers in glaucoma surgery planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":21702,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2026.2725223","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the utility, rationality, and safety of glaucoma surgery recommendations generated by three prominent large language models (LLMs) - ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Gemini - when applied to real-world clinical scenarios.
Methods: Retrospective records from a tertiary hospital were converted into standardized scenarios and stratified into "primary" and "complex" glaucoma groups. Each LLM was prompted to suggest a single surgical approach and provide a rationale. A blinded team of glaucoma specialists evaluated the outputs based on six criteria: appropriateness, rationale quality, specificity, adherence to guidelines, feasibility, and safety risk, using a normalized 0-100 scale.
Results: Median overall quality scores across all cases were 80.7 for ChatGPT, 80.7 for Copilot, and 82.7 for Gemini, showing no statistically significant difference in general performance (p = .367). However, case complexity significantly affected performance. For Gemini, appropriateness and rationale quality scores dropped significantly in complex cases and were accompanied by a statistically significant increase in safety risk (p = .009). Although ChatGPT and Copilot demonstrated more stability across groups, their rationale quality was significantly lower in complex scenarios than in primary ones (p = .014 and <0.001, respectively). Pairwise analyses revealed that ChatGPT offered superior rationale quality compared to Copilot, while Gemini exhibited higher specificity.
Conclusions: LLM-based chatbots can provide acceptable surgical guidance for straightforward primary surgical cases, but their utility is limited in high-risk or complex clinical settings. The observed deficiencies in rationale and increased safety risks in complex cases suggest that LLMs should be integrated as auxiliary decision-support tools under expert supervision rather than used as autonomous decision-makers in glaucoma surgery planning.
期刊介绍:
Seminars in Ophthalmology offers current, clinically oriented reviews on the diagnosis and treatment of ophthalmic disorders. Each issue focuses on a single topic, with a primary emphasis on appropriate surgical techniques.