Utility of artificial intelligence‐based large language models in ophthalmic care

• Published in: Ophthalmic & physiological optics Vol. 44; no. 3; pp. 641 - 671
• Main Authors: Biswas, Sayantan, Davies, Leon N., Sheppard, Amy L., Logan, Nicola S., Wolffsohn, James S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01-05-2024
• Subjects: Artificial intelligence; chatbot; Clinical trials; Decision making; large language model; Large language models; ophthalmic care; ophthalmology; optometry; chatbot; ophthalmology; optometry; large language model; artificial intelligence; ophthalmic care
• ISSN: 0275-5408; 1475-1313
• DOI: 10.1111/opo.13284

Purpose
With the introduction of ChatGPT, artificial intelligence (AI)‐based large language models (LLMs) are rapidly becoming popular within the scientific community. They use natural language processing to generate human‐like responses to queries. However, the application of LLMs and comparison of the abilities among different LLMs with their human counterparts in ophthalmic care remain under‐reported.
Recent Findings
Hitherto, studies in eye care have demonstrated the utility of ChatGPT in generating patient information, clinical diagnosis and passing ophthalmology question‐based examinations, among others. LLMs' performance (median accuracy, %) is influenced by factors such as the iteration, prompts utilised and the domain. Human expert (86%) demonstrated the highest proficiency in disease diagnosis, while ChatGPT‐4 outperformed others in ophthalmology examinations (75.9%), symptom triaging (98%) and providing information and answering questions (84.6%). LLMs exhibited superior performance in general ophthalmology but reduced accuracy in ophthalmic subspecialties. Although AI‐based LLMs like ChatGPT are deemed more efficient than their human counterparts, these AIs are constrained by their nonspecific and outdated training, no access to current knowledge, generation of plausible‐sounding ‘fake’ responses or hallucinations, inability to process images, lack of critical literature analysis and ethical and copyright issues. A comprehensive evaluation of recently published studies is crucial to deepen understanding of LLMs and the potential of these AI‐based LLMs.
Summary
Ophthalmic care professionals should undertake a conservative approach when using AI, as human judgement remains essential for clinical decision‐making and monitoring the accuracy of information. This review identified the ophthalmic applications and potential usages which need further exploration. With the advancement of LLMs, setting standards for benchmarking and promoting best practices is crucial. Potential clinical deployment requires the evaluation of these LLMs to move away from artificial settings, delve into clinical trials and determine their usefulness in the real world.