Back

Can Parents and Patients Understand Myopia Using Large Language Model-Based Chatbots?

Panigrahi, S.; Shah, S.; Thakur, S.; Biswas, S.; Verkicharla, P. K.

2026-03-10 ophthalmology
10.64898/2026.03.09.26347905 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeThis study aimed to compare the reliability of myopia-related information from AI chatbots using a set of commonly asked questions by parents and patients on myopia, which is an emerging disease of the 21st-century. DesignProspective comparative reliability study MethodsThe study used ChatGPT(OpenAI(2025)GPT-5), Gemini(Gemini 2.0,Google,2025) and DeepSeek (DeepSeek-R1). Twenty myopia-related questions were framed from the perspective of parents and patients, covering general questions, prevention and control, and complications of myopia. Based on their experience in the field of myopia, two senior clinicians, one junior clinician and one researcher(all[≥]3 years of experience in myopia) rated the responses generated by AI chatbots on a 5-point Likert scale(1:very poor, 2:poor, 3: acceptable, 4:good and 5:very good). ResultsOverall, combined rating for tested chatbots had median score of 4("good"). Gemini received significantly lower ratings than other two chatbots (p[≤]0.001), with a median rating of 3("acceptable"). ChatGPT and DeepSeek had median score of 4("good") and there was no significant difference in ratings (p=0.48). Both ChatGPT(66.0%) and DeepSeek(67.5%) had high proportions of "good" and "very good" ratings, compared to Gemini(40.0%). Combined "poor" and "very poor" ratings were highest for Gemini(7.5%), followed by ChatGPT(5.0%) and DeepSeek(4.0%). For general questions on myopia, ChatGPT and DeepSeek were rated "good"; for complications of myopia, ChatGPT was rated as "good", while others were rated "acceptable". ConclusionsChatGPT and DeepSeek demonstrated consistently high-quality responses, while ratings for Gemini were slightly lower but remained adequate. These findings suggest AI chatbots can support patients or parents in understanding myopia.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 3%
29.4%
2
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.1%
3
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
11.1%
50% of probability mass above
4
Eye
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.2%
5
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.2%
6
British Journal of Ophthalmology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 29%
4.2%
8
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.9%
9
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
10
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
11
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.4%
12
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
13
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.4%
14
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
15
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
16
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
18
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
19
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
20
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
21
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.9%
22
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
26
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
27
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%