Search

A large language model (LLM) is an artificial intelligence (AI) model that uses natural language processing (NLP) to understand, interpret, and generate human-like language responses from unstructured text input. Its real-time response capabilities and eloquent dialogue enhance the interactive user experience in human–AI communication like never before. By gathering several sources on the internet, LLM chatbots can interact and respond to a wide range of queries, including problem solving, text summarization, and creating informative notes. Since ophthalmology is one of the medical fields integrating image analysis, telemedicine, AI, and other technologies, LLMs are likely to play an important role in eye care in the near future. This review summarizes the performance and potential applicability of LLMs in ophthalmology according to currently available publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Automated diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening using artificial intelligence has the potential to improve access to eye care by enabling large-scale screening. However, little is known about differences in real-world performance between available algorithms. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of two AI screening platforms, IDx-DR and RetCAD, for detecting referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR).Retinal images from 758 patients with diabetes were collected during screening from various clinics in Poland. Each patient was graded by three graders with 320 patients graded by Polish and 438 patients graded by Indian graders, with the majority decision serving as the reference standard. The images were evaluated independently by the IDx-DR and RetCAD algorithms. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and agreement between algorithms and human graders were calculated and statistically compared.IDx-DR demonstrated higher sensitivity of 99.3% but lower specificity of 68.9% for RDR detection compared to RetCAD which had 89.4% sensitivity and 94.8% specificity. The positive predictive value was higher for RetCAD (96.4% vs 48.1% for IDx-DR) while the negative predictive value was higher for IDx-DR (99.5% vs 83.1% for RetCAD). Both algorithms achieved high sensitivity (> 95%) for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy detection.In this direct comparison using the same patient cohort, the two algorithms showed differences in their operating parameters for RDR screening. IDx-DR prioritized avoiding false negatives over false positives while RetCAD maintained a more balanced trade-off. These results highlight the variable performance of current artificial intelligence screening solutions and suggest the importance of considering algorithm performance metrics when deploying automated diabetic retinopathy screening programs, based on available healthcare resources.Methods: Automated diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening using artificial intelligence has the potential to improve access to eye care by enabling large-scale screening. However, little is known about differences in real-world performance between available algorithms. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of two AI screening platforms, IDx-DR and RetCAD, for detecting referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR).Retinal images from 758 patients with diabetes were collected during screening from various clinics in Poland. Each patient was graded by three graders with 320 patients graded by Polish and 438 patients graded by Indian graders, with the majority decision serving as the reference standard. The images were evaluated independently by the IDx-DR and RetCAD algorithms. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and agreement between algorithms and human graders were calculated and statistically compared.IDx-DR demonstrated higher sensitivity of 99.3% but lower specificity of 68.9% for RDR detection compared to RetCAD which had 89.4% sensitivity and 94.8% specificity. The positive predictive value was higher for RetCAD (96.4% vs 48.1% for IDx-DR) while the negative predictive value was higher for IDx-DR (99.5% vs 83.1% for RetCAD). Both algorithms achieved high sensitivity (> 95%) for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy detection.In this direct comparison using the same patient cohort, the two algorithms showed differences in their operating parameters for RDR screening. IDx-DR prioritized avoiding false negatives over false positives while RetCAD maintained a more balanced trade-off. These results highlight the variable performance of current artificial intelligence screening solutions and suggest the importance of considering algorithm performance metrics when deploying automated diabetic retinopathy screening programs, based on available healthcare resources.Results: Automated diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening using artificial intelligence has the potential to improve access to eye care by enabling large-scale screening. However, little is known about differences in real-world performance between available algorithms. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of two AI screening platforms, IDx-DR and RetCAD, for detecting referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR).Retinal images from 758 patients with diabetes were collected during screening from various clinics in Poland. Each patient was graded by three graders with 320 patients graded by Polish and 438 patients graded by Indian graders, with the majority decision serving as the reference standard. The images were evaluated independently by the IDx-DR and RetCAD algorithms. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and agreement between algorithms and human graders were calculated and statistically compared.IDx-DR demonstrated higher sensitivity of 99.3% but lower specificity of 68.9% for RDR detection compared to RetCAD which had 89.4% sensitivity and 94.8% specificity. The positive predictive value was higher for RetCAD (96.4% vs 48.1% for IDx-DR) while the negative predictive value was higher for IDx-DR (99.5% vs 83.1% for RetCAD). Both algorithms achieved high sensitivity (> 95%) for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy detection.In this direct comparison using the same patient cohort, the two algorithms showed differences in their operating parameters for RDR screening. IDx-DR prioritized avoiding false negatives over false positives while RetCAD maintained a more balanced trade-off. These results highlight the variable performance of current artificial intelligence screening solutions and suggest the importance of considering algorithm performance metrics when deploying automated diabetic retinopathy screening programs, based on available healthcare resources.Conclusion: Automated diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening using artificial intelligence has the potential to improve access to eye care by enabling large-scale screening. However, little is known about differences in real-world performance between available algorithms. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of two AI screening platforms, IDx-DR and RetCAD, for detecting referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR).Retinal images from 758 patients with diabetes were collected during screening from various clinics in Poland. Each patient was graded by three graders with 320 patients graded by Polish and 438 patients graded by Indian graders, with the majority decision serving as the reference standard. The images were evaluated independently by the IDx-DR and RetCAD algorithms. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and agreement between algorithms and human graders were calculated and statistically compared.IDx-DR demonstrated higher sensitivity of 99.3% but lower specificity of 68.9% for RDR detection compared to RetCAD which had 89.4% sensitivity and 94.8% specificity. The positive predictive value was higher for RetCAD (96.4% vs 48.1% for IDx-DR) while the negative predictive value was higher for IDx-DR (99.5% vs 83.1% for RetCAD). Both algorithms achieved high sensitivity (> 95%) for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy detection.In this direct comparison using the same patient cohort, the two algorithms showed differences in their operating parameters for RDR screening. IDx-DR prioritized avoiding false negatives over false positives while RetCAD maintained a more balanced trade-off. These results highlight the variable performance of current artificial intelligence screening solutions and suggest the importance of considering algorithm performance metrics when deploying automated diabetic retinopathy screening programs, based on available healthcare resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]