Fine-tuning Large Language Model (LLM) Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Ophthalmology and LLM-based evaluation using GPT-4
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: To assess the alignment of GPT-4-based evaluation to human clinician experts, for the evaluation of responses to ophthalmology-related patient queries generated by fine-tuned LLM chatbots. Methods: 400 ophthalmology questions and paired answers were created by ophthalmologists to represent commonly asked patient questions, divided into fine-tuning (368; 92%), and testing (40; 8%). We find-tuned 5 different LLMs, including LLAMA2-7b, LLAMA2-7b-Chat, LLAMA2-13b, and LLAMA2-13b-Chat. For the testing dataset, additional 8 glaucoma QnA pairs were included. 200 responses to the testing dataset were generated by 5 fine-tuned LLMs for evaluation. A customized clinical evaluation rubric was used to guide GPT-4 evaluation, grounded on clinical accuracy, relevance, patient safety, and ease of understanding. GPT-4 evaluation was then compared against ranking by 5 clinicians for clinical alignment. Results: Among all fine-tuned LLMs, GPT-3.5 scored the highest (87.1%), followed by LLAMA2-13b (80.9%), LLAMA2-13b-chat (75.5%), LLAMA2-7b-Chat (70%) and LLAMA2-7b (68.8%) based on the GPT-4 evaluation. GPT-4 evaluation demonstrated significant agreement with human clinician rankings, with Spearman and Kendall Tau correlation coefficients of 0.90 and 0.80 respectively; while correlation based on Cohen Kappa was more modest at 0.50. Notably, qualitative analysis and the glaucoma sub-analysis revealed clinical inaccuracies in the LLM-generated responses, which were appropriately identified by the GPT-4 evaluation. Conclusion: The notable clinical alignment of GPT-4 evaluation highlighted its potential to streamline the clinical evaluation of LLM chatbot responses to healthcare-related queries. By complementing the existing clinician-dependent manual grading, this efficient and automated evaluation could assist the validation of future developments in LLM applications for healthcare.
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?
LLMs can identify early signs of diabetic retinopathy by cross-referencing a patient's clinical history with emerging trends in large datasets, providing clinicians a tool to intervene before irreversible damage occurs.
“For instance, Tan et al. worked on how LLMs can identify early signs of diabetic retinopathy by cross-referencing a patient’s clinical history with emerging trends in large datasets, providing clinicians with a powerful tool to intervene before irreversible damage occurs (23).”
From Generative artificial intelligence in predictive analysis of diabetes and its complications: a narrative review (2025) · cites this paper as [23]
The ‘How is diabetic retinopathy diagnosed?’ passage says that diagnosis and treatment can prevent progression, supporting the importance of timely intervention. But the Introduction describes this study as evaluating LLM responses to patients’ ophthalmology questions; our copy does not show LLMs identifying early signs by cross-referencing clinical histories with trends in large datasets. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Vaswani, A., et al., Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 2017. 30.
- Kung, T., et al., Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digit Health 2 (2): e0000198. 2023.
- Singhal, K., et al., Towards expert-level medical question answering with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09617, 2023. · arXiv
- Anil, R., et al., Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403, 2023. · arXiv
- Zhao, H., et al., Ophtha-llama2: A large language model for ophthalmology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04906, 2023. · arXiv
- Touvron, H., et al., Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. · arXiv
- Candel, A., et al., h2oGPT: Democratizing Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08161, 2023. · arXiv
- Hu, E.J., et al., Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021. · arXiv
- Achiam, J., et al., Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. · arXiv
- Stepanov, A., On the Kendall correlation coefficient. arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.01427, 2015. · arXiv
- Liu, Y., et al., Gpteval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16634, 2023. · arXiv
- Chiang, C.-H. and H.-y. Lee, Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01937, 2023. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Osonuga, A., Olawade, D. B., Gore, M., Rotifa, O. B., Egbon, E., Chinwah, V., & Boussios, S. (2025) · Annals of Translational Medicine · doi:10.21037/atm-25-62 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tan, T. F., Elangovan, K., Jin, L., Jie, Y., Yong, L., Lim, J., Poh, S., Ng, W. Y., Lim, D., Ke, Y., Liu, N., & Ting, D. S. W.
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2402.10083
- OpenAlex
- W4391901165
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (public-domain)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Visual Health Research
- Keywords
- large language models, LLM chatbots, Llama 2, glaucoma
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
