Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/107544
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorSchool of Optometryen_US
dc.contributorResearch Centre for SHARP Visionen_US
dc.creatorXu, Pen_US
dc.creatorChen, Xen_US
dc.creatorZhao, Zen_US
dc.creatorShi, Den_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-03T04:31:38Z-
dc.date.available2024-07-03T04:31:38Z-
dc.identifier.issn0007-1161en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/107544-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBMJ Groupen_US
dc.rights© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re- use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.en_US
dc.rightsThis article has been accepted for publication in British Journal of Ophthalmology, 2024 following peer review, and the Version of Record can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2023-325054.en_US
dc.titleUnveiling the clinical incapabilities : a benchmarking study of GPT-4V(ision) for ophthalmic multimodal image analysisen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.volume108en_US
dc.identifier.issue10en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bjo-2023-325054en_US
dcterms.abstractPurpose: To evaluate the capabilities and incapabilities of a GPT-4V(ision)-based chatbot in interpreting ocular multimodal images.en_US
dcterms.abstractMethods: We developed a digital ophthalmologist app using GPT-4V and evaluated its performance with a dataset (60 images, 60 ophthalmic conditions, 6 modalities) that included slit-lamp, scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, fundus photography of the posterior pole (FPP), optical coherence tomography, fundus fluorescein angiography and ocular ultrasound images. The chatbot was tested with ten open-ended questions per image, covering examination identification, lesion detection, diagnosis and decision support. The responses were manually assessed for accuracy, usability, safety and diagnosis repeatability. Auto-evaluation was performed using sentence similarity and GPT-4-based auto-evaluation.en_US
dcterms.abstractResults: Out of 600 responses, 30.6% were accurate, 21.5% were highly usable and 55.6% were deemed as no harm. GPT-4V performed best with slit-lamp images, with 42.0%, 38.5% and 68.5% of the responses being accurate, highly usable and no harm, respectively. However, its performance was weaker in FPP images, with only 13.7%, 3.7% and 38.5% in the same categories. GPT-4V correctly identified 95.6% of the imaging modalities and showed varying accuracies in lesion identification (25.6%), diagnosis (16.1%) and decision support (24.0%). The overall repeatability of GPT-4V in diagnosing ocular images was 63.3% (38/60). The overall sentence similarity between responses generated by GPT-4V and human answers is 55.5%, with Spearman correlations of 0.569 for accuracy and 0.576 for usability.en_US
dcterms.abstractConclusion: GPT-4V currently is not yet suitable for clinical decision-making in ophthalmology. Our study serves as a benchmark for enhancing ophthalmic multimodal models.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationBritish journal of ophthalmology, Oct. 2024, v. 108, no. 10, 1384en_US
dcterms.isPartOfBritish journal of ophthalmologyen_US
dcterms.issued2024-10-
dc.identifier.pmid38789133-
dc.identifier.eissn1468-2079en_US
dc.identifier.artn1384en_US
dc.description.validate202407 bcchen_US
dc.description.oaAccepted Manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumbera2925-
dc.identifier.SubFormID48779-
dc.description.fundingSourceOthersen_US
dc.description.fundingTextStart-up Fund for RAPs under the Strategic Hiring Schemeen_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
dc.description.oaCategoryGreen (AAM)en_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Xu_Unveiling_Clinical_Incapabilities.pdfPre-Published version2.03 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Final Accepted Manuscript
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Page views

39
Citations as of Apr 14, 2025

Downloads

57
Citations as of Apr 14, 2025

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

21
Citations as of Sep 12, 2025

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

29
Citations as of Dec 18, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.