Evaluation of Large Language Model-Generated Recommendations in Glaucoma Surgical Decision-Making.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Müge Toprak, Büşra Yılmaz Tuğan, Nurşen Yüksel
{"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.

青光眼手术决策中大型语言模型生成建议的评价。
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
Seminars in Ophthalmology
Seminars in Ophthalmology OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
80
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
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