Performance of ChatGPT in Diagnosis of Corneal Eye Diseases

Author:

Delsoz Mohammad,Madadi Yeganeh,Munir Wuqaas M,Tamm Brendan,Mehravaran Shiva,Soleimani Mohammad,Djalilian Ali,Yousefi Siamak

Abstract

ABSTRACTIntroductionAssessing the capabilities of ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-3.5 for diagnosing corneal eye diseases based on case reports and compare with human experts.MethodsWe randomly selected 20 cases of corneal diseases including corneal infections, dystrophies, degenerations, and injuries from a publicly accessible online database from the University of Iowa. We then input the text of each case description into ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT3.5 and asked for a provisional diagnosis. We finally evaluated the responses based on the correct diagnoses then compared with the diagnoses of three cornea specialists (Human experts) and evaluated interobserver agreements.ResultsThe provisional diagnosis accuracy based on ChatGPT-4.0 was 85% (17 correct out of 20 cases) while the accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5 was 60% (12 correct cases out of 20). The accuracy of three cornea specialists were 100% (20 cases), 90% (18 cases), and 90% (18 cases), respectively. The interobserver agreement between ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-3.5 was 65% (13 cases) while the interobserver agreement between ChatGPT-4.0 and three cornea specialists were 85% (17 cases), 80% (16 cases), and 75% (15 cases), respectively. However, the interobserver agreement between ChatGPT-3.5 and each of three cornea specialists was 60% (12 cases).ConclusionsThe accuracy of ChatGPT-4.0 in diagnosing patients with various corneal conditions was markedly improved than ChatGPT-3.5 and promising for potential clinical integration.Key summary points-The aim of this work was to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 for providing the provisional diagnosis of different corneal eye diseases based on case descriptions and compared them with three cornea specialists.-The accuracy of ChatGPT-4.0 in diagnosing patients with various corneal conditions was significantly better than ChatGPT-3.5 based on the specific cases.-The interobserver agreement between ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-3.5 was 65% while the interobserver agreement between ChatGPT-4.0 and three cornea specialists were 85%, 80%, and 75%, respectively.

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Reference28 articles.

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3