PreprintCited by 32Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationOphthalmology and Visual Health ResearchArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Assessment of ChatGPT in the preclinical management of ophthalmological emergencies – an analysis of ten fictional case vignettes

Open access
Knebel, Dominik, Priglinger, Siegfried, Scherer, Nicolas, Siedlecki, Jakob, Schworm, Benedikt·2023·Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde

Preprint — published as 10.1055/a-2149-0447

Abstract

Background/Aims: The artificial intelligence (AI) based platform ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer, OpenAI LP, San Francisco, CA, USA) has gained an impressing popularity over the past months. Its performance on case vignettes of general medical (non-ophthalmological) emergencies has priorly been assessed with very encouraging results. The purpose of this study is to assess the performance of ChatGPT on ophthalmological emergency case vignettes in terms of the main outcome measures triage accuracy, appropriateness of recommended preclinical measures and overall potential to inflict harm to the user/patient. Methods: We wrote ten short, fictional case vignettes describing different acute ophthalmological symptoms. Each vignette was entered into ChatGPT five times with the same wording and following a standardized interaction pathway. The answers were analysed in a standardised manner. Results: We observed a triage accuracy of 87.2%. Most answers contained only appropriate recommendations for preclinical measures. However, an overall potential to inflict harm to users/patients was present in 32% of answers. Conclusion: ChatGPT should not be used as a stand-alone primary source of information about acute ophthalmological symptoms. As AI continues to evolve, its safety and efficacy in the preclinical management of ophthalmological emergencies has to be reassessed regularly.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2023.04.16.23288645

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research by Knebel et al. on self-triaging in ophthalmologic emergencies indicates that ChatGPT's responses can't reliably prioritize urgency, reducing their usefulness.

    “For instance, research by Knebel et al. on self-triaging in ophthalmologic emergencies indicates that ChatGPT’s responses can’t reliably prioritize urgency, reducing their usefulness45.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Knebel, D., Priglinger, S., Scherer, N., Siedlecki, J., & Schworm, B.
Affiliations
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Corresponding author
Knebel, Dominik
Venue
Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2023-04-24
Volume
241
Issue
05
Pages
675-681
ISSN
0023-2165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4387968480
Cited by
32
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Visual Health Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
ChatGPT, artificial intelligence, ophthalmic emergencies, prehospital care, triage accuracy, case vignettes, AI-generated medical advice, patient safety
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Emergencies, Emergency Medical Services, Eye Diseases, Humans, Triage

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review