Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Evaluating Large Language Models in Ophthalmology

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.04933 v1 pith:PB65BWWI submitted 2023-11-07 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords gpt-4medicaldifferentgpt-3ophthalmologypalm2threeattending
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Purpose: The performance of three different large language models (LLMS) (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and PaLM2) in answering ophthalmology professional questions was evaluated and compared with that of three different professional populations (medical undergraduates, medical masters, and attending physicians). Methods: A 100-item ophthalmology single-choice test was administered to three different LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and PaLM2) and three different professional levels (medical undergraduates, medical masters, and attending physicians), respectively. The performance of LLM was comprehensively evaluated and compared with the human group in terms of average score, stability, and confidence. Results: Each LLM outperformed undergraduates in general, with GPT-3.5 and PaLM2 being slightly below the master's level, while GPT-4 showed a level comparable to that of attending physicians. In addition, GPT-4 showed significantly higher answer stability and confidence than GPT-3.5 and PaLM2. Conclusion: Our study shows that LLM represented by GPT-4 performs better in the field of ophthalmology. With further improvements, LLM will bring unexpected benefits in medical education and clinical decision making in the near future.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. BEnchmarking LLMs for Ophthalmology (BELO) for Ophthalmological Knowledge and Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    BELO is a new ophthalmology benchmark of 900 expert-checked multiple-choice questions with reasoning, used to evaluate six LLMs on accuracy and explanation quality.

Pith tools