Artificial intelligence versus ophthalmology experts: Comparative analysis of responses to blepharitis patient queries

ObjectiveTo assess the accuracy and clinical education value of responses from AI models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Gemini, Gemini Advanced) compared to expert ophthalmologists' answers to common patient questions about blepharitis, and evaluate their potential for patient education and clinical use.MethodsThirteen frequently asked questions about blepharitis were selected. Responses were generated by AI models and compared to expert answers. A panel of ophthalmologists rated each response for correctness and clinical education value using a 7-point Likert scale. The Friedman test with post hoc comparisons was used to identify performance differences.ResultsExpert responses had the highest correctness (6.3) and clinical education value (6.4) scores, especially in complex, context-driven questions. Significant differences were found between expert and AI responses (<i>P</i> < 0.05). Among AI models, GPT-3.5 performed best in simple definitions (correctness: 6.4) but dropped to 5.5 in nuanced cases. GPT-4o followed (5.4), while Gemini and Gemini Advanced scored lower (5.0 and 4.9), especially in diagnostic and treatment contexts.ConclusionsAI models can support patient education by effectively answering basic factual questions about blepharitis. However, their limitations in complex clinical scenarios highlight the continued need for expert input. While promising as educational tools, AI should complement-not replace-clinician guidance in patient care.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Ophthalmology
Published
2025-06-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721251350809
Primary Topic
Retinal and Optic Conditions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Artificial intelligence versus ophthalmology experts: Comparative analysis of responses to blepharitis patient queries

David Lockington, Joshua C. Teichman, Daniel Bahir, Michael Mimouni et al.
European Journal of Ophthalmology
Retinal and Optic Conditions
article

Artificial intelligence versus ophthalmology experts: Comparative analysis of responses to blepharitis patient queries

David Lockington, Joshua C. Teichman, Daniel Bahir, Michael Mimouni, Clara C. Chan, Yumna Busool, Shirin Hamed Azzam, Artemis Matsou, Audrey Talley Rostov, Elad Shvartz
article en

Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the accuracy and clinical education value of responses from AI models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Gemini, Gemini Advanced) compared to expert ophthalmologists' answers to common patient questions about blepharitis, and evaluate their potential for patient education and clinical use.MethodsThirteen frequently asked questions about blepharitis were selected. Responses were generated by AI models and compared to expert answers. A panel of ophthalmologists rated each response for correctness and clinical education value using a 7-point Likert scale. The Friedman test with post hoc comparisons was used to identify performance differences.ResultsExpert responses had the highest correctness (6.3) and clinical education value (6.4) scores, especially in complex, context-driven questions. Significant differences were found between expert and AI responses (<i>P</i> < 0.05). Among AI models, GPT-3.5 performed best in simple definitions (correctness: 6.4) but dropped to 5.5 in nuanced cases. GPT-4o followed (5.4), while Gemini and Gemini Advanced scored lower (5.0 and 4.9), especially in diagnostic and treatment contexts.ConclusionsAI models can support patient education by effectively answering basic factual questions about blepharitis. However, their limitations in complex clinical scenarios highlight the continued need for expert input. While promising as educational tools, AI should complement-not replace-clinician guidance in patient care.

European Journal of OphthalmologyVol. 35(6)
Bar-Ilan University (IL), Bellevue College (US), University of Toronto (CA), Rambam Health Care Campus (IL), Gartnavel General Hospital (GB), Queen Victoria Hospital (GB), Institute of Ophthalmology (MX)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Retinal and Optic Conditions
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.