Retrospective Assessment of LLM Decision-Making for IOL Power Selection in Cataract Surgery in Comparison with Surgeon Performance

Objectives: To evaluate a general-purpose large language model (LLM)’s ability to perform surgeon-level decision-making in choosing an intraocular lens (IOL) power when provided the same preoperative data. Methods: This study included 293 eyes (174 patients) that underwent monofocal or toric cataract surgery performed by a single surgeon. GPT-5.2 analyzed the same biometric printouts, topographic displays, and preoperative data used in surgical planning. Postoperative refraction for GPT-5.2-selected IOLs was simulated from the measured postoperative refraction using a fixed conversion factor. The mean refractive deviation from target, mean absolute error (MAE), and number of eyes within ±0.25 D and ±0.50 D of target refraction were calculated. A subgroup analysis evaluated toric IOL cylinder magnitude and axis. Results: GPT-5.2-selected IOL power differed significantly from that of the surgeon (19.24 ± 4.01 vs. 19.64 ± 4.07 D [mean ± SD], p < 0.001). Using simulated refractive outcomes for GPT-5.2, MAE was higher than for surgeon-selected IOLs (0.45 ± 0.03 vs. 0.35 ± 0.02 D [mean ± SE], p = 0.002), and a greater percentage of eyes fell within ±0.25 D of target refraction for the surgeon (51.9% vs. 44.7%, p < 0.01), with no difference within ±0.50 D (p = 0.06). In toric eyes, the cylinder magnitude did not differ, but simulated residual astigmatism was higher for GPT-5.2 (0.78 ± 0.55 vs. 0.58 ± 0.47 D, p < 0.001), with an axis flip in 47.1% versus 39.2% of eyes. Conclusions: GPT-5.2 synthesized clinical data and approximated surgeon IOL selection, but its simulated refractive outcomes were less accurate than the surgeon’s measured outcomes. These findings suggest that a domain-specific LLM may serve as a support tool in IOL selection and cataract surgery planning.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2026-09-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15197463
Primary Topic
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Retrospective Assessment of LLM Decision-Making for IOL Power Selection in Cataract Surgery in Comparison with Surgeon Performance

Phillip C. Hoopes, Majid Moshirfar, Josh Zhe, Mina M. Sitto et al.
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
article

Retrospective Assessment of LLM Decision-Making for IOL Power Selection in Cataract Surgery in Comparison with Surgeon Performance

Phillip C. Hoopes, Majid Moshirfar, Josh Zhe, Mina M. Sitto, Sanjana Molleti, Randle M. Uyeda, Hanna Pawlowski
article en

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate a general-purpose large language model (LLM)’s ability to perform surgeon-level decision-making in choosing an intraocular lens (IOL) power when provided the same preoperative data. Methods: This study included 293 eyes (174 patients) that underwent monofocal or toric cataract surgery performed by a single surgeon. GPT-5.2 analyzed the same biometric printouts, topographic displays, and preoperative data used in surgical planning. Postoperative refraction for GPT-5.2-selected IOLs was simulated from the measured postoperative refraction using a fixed conversion factor. The mean refractive deviation from target, mean absolute error (MAE), and number of eyes within ±0.25 D and ±0.50 D of target refraction were calculated. A subgroup analysis evaluated toric IOL cylinder magnitude and axis. Results: GPT-5.2-selected IOL power differed significantly from that of the surgeon (19.24 ± 4.01 vs. 19.64 ± 4.07 D [mean ± SD], p < 0.001). Using simulated refractive outcomes for GPT-5.2, MAE was higher than for surgeon-selected IOLs (0.45 ± 0.03 vs. 0.35 ± 0.02 D [mean ± SE], p = 0.002), and a greater percentage of eyes fell within ±0.25 D of target refraction for the surgeon (51.9% vs. 44.7%, p < 0.01), with no difference within ±0.50 D (p = 0.06). In toric eyes, the cylinder magnitude did not differ, but simulated residual astigmatism was higher for GPT-5.2 (0.78 ± 0.55 vs. 0.58 ± 0.47 D, p < 0.001), with an axis flip in 47.1% versus 39.2% of eyes. Conclusions: GPT-5.2 synthesized clinical data and approximated surgeon IOL selection, but its simulated refractive outcomes were less accurate than the surgeon’s measured outcomes. These findings suggest that a domain-specific LLM may serve as a support tool in IOL selection and cataract surgery planning.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 15(19)
University of Minnesota (US), University of Arizona (US), University of Phoenix (US), Minnesota Lions Eye Bank (US), Hoopes Vision (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
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.