Assessing the diagnostic capabilities of ChatGPT-4 omni in grading diabetic retinopathy fundoscopy using color fundus photographs
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of vision loss in working-age adults. Despite the importance of early DR detection, only 60% of patients with diabetes receive recommended annual screenings due to limited eye care provider capacity. FDA-approved AI systems were developed to meet the growing demand for DR screening; however, high costs and specialized equipment limit accessibility. More accessible and equally as accurate AI systems need to be evaluated to combat this disparity. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-4 Omni (GPT-4o) in classifying DR from color fundus photographs (CFPs) to assess its potential as a low-cost alternative screening tool. Methods: We utilized the publicly available EyePACS DR detection competition dataset from Kaggle, which includes 2,500 CFPs representing no DR, mild DR, moderate DR, severe DR, and proliferative DR. Each image was presented to GPT-4o with 1 of 8 prompts designed to enhance the model's accuracy. The results were analyzed through confusion matrices, and metrics such as accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 scores were calculated to evaluate performance. Results: In prompts 1-3, GPT-4o showed a strong bias towards classifying images as no DR, with an average accuracy of 51.0%, while accuracy for other stages ranged from 70% to 80%. GPT-4o struggled with misclassifications, particularly between adjacent DR levels. It performed best in detecting proliferative DR (Level 4), achieving an F1 score above 0.3 and accuracy exceeding 80%. In binary classification tasks (Prompts 4.1-4.4), GPT-4o's performance improved, though it still had difficulty distinguishing mild DR (49.8% accuracy). When compared to FDA-approved AI systems, GPT-4o's sensitivity (47.7%) and specificity (73.8%) were significantly lower. Conclusion: While GPT-4o shows promise identifying severe DR, limitations in distinguishing early stages exist and highlight the need for further refinement before clinical usage in DR screening. Unlike traditional CNN-based tools like IDx-DR, GPT-4o is a multimodal foundation model with a fundamentally different architecture and training process, which may contribute to its diagnostic limitations. GPT-4o and other LLMs are not designed to learn about important DR features like microaneurysms or hemorrhages using pixel data which is why they may struggle to detect DR compared to CNN models.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Chetla et al. utilized ChatGPT-4 Omni to grade DR severity on the EyePACS dataset, achieving high precision for PDR detection (accuracy 75.6%, precision 92.2%), demonstrating the feasibility of general-purpose LLMs for low-cost DR screening.
“Chetla et al. [131] utilized ChatGPT-4 Omni to grade DR severity on the EyePACS dataset, achieving high precision for PDR detection (accuracy 75.6%, precision 92.2%), demonstrating the feasibility of general-purpose LLMs for low-cost DR screening.”
From Artificial intelligence-powered prediction of diabetic complications: from clinical data to molecular omics (2026) · cites this paper as [131]
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn diabetic retinopathy grading tasks, ChatGPT-4 Omni performs well for proliferative diabetic retinopathy detection but shows markedly lower accuracy for mild or early-stage lesions.
“For instance, in DR grading tasks, ChatGPT-4 Omni performs well for PDR detection but shows markedly lower accuracy for mild or early-stage lesions [131], highlighting insufficient robustness under domain shift [140].”
From Artificial intelligence-powered prediction of diabetic complications: from clinical data to molecular omics (2026) · cites this paper as [131]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 5
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- [1]Fong DS, Aiello L, Gardner TW, et al. Retinopathy in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004; 27(Suppl 1): S84– S87. doi: 10.2337/diacare.27.2007.S84 14693935 · DOI
- [2]Saaddine JB, Honeycutt AA, Narayan KM, Zhang X, Klein R, Boyle JP. Projection of diabetic retinopathy and other major eye diseases among people with diabetes mellitus: united States, 2005–2050. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008; 126(12): 1740– 1747. doi: 10.1001/archopht.126.12.1740 19064858 · DOI · Paper page
- [3]Wittenborn JS, Zhang X, Feagan CW, et al. The economic burden of vision loss and eye disorders among the United States population younger than 40 years. Ophthalmology. 2013; 120(8): 1728– 1735. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.068 23631946 PMC5304763 · DOI
- [4]Hendricks LE, Hendricks RT. Greatest fears of type 1 and type 2 patients about having diabetes: implications for diabetes educators. Diabetes Educator. 1998; 24(2): 168– 173. doi: 10.1177/014572179802400206 9555355 · DOI
- [5]Fong DS, Aiello L, Gardner TW, et al. Diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Care. 2003; 26(Suppl 1): S99– S102. doi: 10.2337/diacare.26.2007.S99 12502630 · DOI
- [6]Mazhar K, Varma R, Choudhury F, et al. Severity of diabetic retinopathy and health-related quality of life: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2011; 118(4): 649– 655. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.08.003 21035872 PMC3070833 · DOI
- [7]Willis JR, Doan QV, Gleeson M, et al. Vision-related functional burden of diabetic retinopathy across severity levels in the United States. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017; 135(9): 926– 932. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.2553 28750122 PMC5710538 · DOI
- [8]Wong TY, Sun J, Kawasaki R, et al. Guidelines on diabetic eye care: the International Council of Ophthalmology recommendations for screening, follow-up, referral, and treatment based on resource settings. Ophthalmology. 2018; 125(10): 1608– 1622. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.04.007 29776671 · DOI · Paper page
- [9]Javitt JC, Aiello LP. Cost-effectiveness of detecting and treating diabetic retinopathy. Ann Internal Med. 1996; 124(1 Pt 2): 164– 169. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-124-1_Part_2-199601011-00017 8554212 · DOI · Paper page
- [10]Rohan TE, Frost CD, Wald NJ. Prevention of blindness by screening for diabetic retinopathy: a quantitative assessment. BMJ. 1989; 299(6709): 1198– 1201. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6709.1198 2513049 PMC1838060 · DOI
- [12]Abràmoff MD, Lavin PT, Birch M, Shah N, Folk JC. Pivotal trial of an autonomous AI-based diagnostic system for detection of diabetic retinopathy in primary care offices. NPJ Digital Med. 2018; 1(39). doi: 10.1038/s41746-018-0040-6 PMC6550188 31304320 · DOI · Paper page
- [13]Ipp E, Liljenquist D, Bode B, et al. Pivotal evaluation of an artificial intelligence system for autonomous detection of referrable and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy [published correction appears in JAMA. Network Open. 2021; 4(12): e2144317. PMC8593763 34779843
- [15]Ziegelmayer S, Marka AW, Lenhart N, et al. Evaluation of GPT-4’s chest X-ray impression generation: a reader study on performance and perception. J Med Internet Res. 2023; 25: e50865. doi: 10.2196/50865 38133918 PMC10770784 · DOI
- [16]Ting DSJ, Tan TF, Ting DSW. ChatGPT in ophthalmology: the dawn of a new era? Eye. 2023; 38(1): 4– 7. doi: 10.1038/s41433-023-02619-4 37369764 PMC10764795 · DOI
- [19]Tariq M, Palade V, Ma Y. Transfer learning based classification of diabetic retinopathy on the Kaggle EyePACS dataset; 2023. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14506.29126. · DOI
- [20]Kung TH, Cheatham M, Medenilla A, et al. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digital Health. 2023; 2(2): e0000198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 36812645 PMC9931230 · DOI · Paper page
- [22]AlRyalat SA, Musleh AM, Kahook MY. Evaluating the strengths and limitations of multimodal ChatGPT-4 in detecting glaucoma using fundus images. Front Ophthalmol. 2024; 4. doi: 10.3389/fopht.2024.138719 PMC11182172 38984105 · DOI
- [24]Lim JI, Regillo CD, Sadda SR, et al. Artificial intelligence detection of diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmol Sci. 2023; 3(1): 100228. doi: 10.1016/j.xops.2022.100228 36345378 PMC9636573 · DOI · Paper page
- Authors
- Chetla, N., Samayamanthula, S., Chang, J., Leigh, A., Akosman, S., Tandon, M., Hage, T., & Cusick, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Virginia (US)
- University of Passau (DE)
- George Washington University (US)
- Albany Medical College (US)
- Virginia Tech (US)
- Corresponding author
- Samayamanthula, Sai
- ORCID
- Venue
- Clinical Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2025-08
- Volume
- Volume 19
- Pages
- 3103-3112
- ISSN
- 1177-5467 (ISSN-L)
- 1177-5483
- PMC
- PMC12411675
- OpenAlex
- W4413856485
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5
- FWCI
- 2.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Clinical ophthalmology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Visual Health Research
- Keywords
- diabetic retinopathy, large language models, color fundus images, diabetic retinopathy screening, low-cost screening, diagnostic accuracy, prompt engineering, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, multimodal foundation models, EyePACS dataset
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