Assessment of ChatGPT in the preclinical management of ophthalmological emergencies – an analysis of ten fictional case vignettes
Open accessPreprint — 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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From The ethics of ChatGPT in medicine and healthcare: a systematic review on large language models (LLMs) (2024) · cites this paper as [45]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Haltaufderheide, J., & Ranisch, R. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01157-x · Cited by 396 · see citing works
Eye of the AI storm: Exploring the impact of AI Tools in ophthalmology
Honavar, S. G. (2023) · Indian Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.4103/ijo.ijo_1478_23 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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