Large language models approach expert-level clinical knowledge and reasoning in ophthalmology: A head-to-head cross-sectional study

Journal article

Large language models (LLMs) underlie remarkable recent advanced in natural language processing, and they are beginning to be applied in clinical contexts. We aimed to evaluate the clinical potential of state-of-the-art LLMs in ophthalmology using a more robust benchmark than raw examination scores. We trialled GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on 347 ophthalmology questions before GPT-3.5, GPT-4, PaLM 2, LLaMA, expert ophthalmologists, and doctors in training were trialled on a mock examination of 87 questions. Performance was analysed with respect to question subject and type (first order recall and higher order reasoning). Masked ophthalmologists graded the accuracy, relevance, and overall preference of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 responses to the same questions. The performance of GPT-4 (69%) was superior to GPT-3.5 (48%), LLaMA (32%), and PaLM 2 (56%). GPT-4 compared favourably with expert ophthalmologists (median 76%, range 64-90%), ophthalmology trainees (median 59%, range 57-63%), and unspecialised junior doctors (median 43%, range 41-44%). Low agreement between LLMs and doctors reflected idiosyncratic differences in knowledge and reasoning with overall consistency across subjects and types (p>0.05). All ophthalmologists preferred GPT-4 responses over GPT-3.5 and rated the accuracy and relevance of GPT-4 as higher (p<0.05). LLMs are approaching expert-level knowledge and reasoning skills in ophthalmology. In view of the comparable or superior performance to trainee-grade ophthalmologists and unspecialised junior doctors, state-of-the-art LLMs such as GPT-4 may provide useful medical advice and assistance where access to expert ophthalmologists is limited. Clinical benchmarks provide useful assays of LLM capabilities in healthcare before clinical trials can be designed and conducted.

Authors: Thirunavukarasu, AJ; Mahmood, S; Malem, A; Foster, WP; Sanghera, R

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Public Library of Science
• Journal: PLOS Digital Health
• Volume: 3
• Issue: 4
• Pages: e0000341
• Publication date: 2024-04-17
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000341
• ISSN: 2767-3170
• Pmid: 38630683
• Language: English