Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates clinical reasoning in pediatric myopia, suggesting enhanced safety and accuracy with RAG models.
To evaluate the clinical reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems in pediatric myopia management using a real-world, expert-annotated case set covering diverse refractive, pathological, and high-risk scenarios. Six models were tested: baseline LLMs (GPT Base, Gemini Base, Grok Base) and their RAG variants (GPT-RAG, Gemini-RAG, Grok-RAG). RAG was augmented with 41 authoritative guidelines, including IMI white papers and the LAMP study. Performance was evaluated through automated scoring by Claude 4 Opus and blinded adjudication by three senior ophthalmologists, focusing on Accuracy, Utility, and Safety. RAG-enhanced models significantly outperformed baseline models across all metrics. Notably, GPT-RAG achieved the highest weighted automated score (7.46), surpassing GPT Base (7.37). Human adjudication revealed that RAG models achieved 90–94% consensus alignment compared to 68–82% for baselines. Crucially, the probability of high-risk recommendations—those capable of causing severe vision loss—was eliminated (0%) in all RAG models, whereas baseline models exhibited high-risk error rates of 6–14%. LLM + RAG integration boosts reliability and safety in pediatric myopia care, particularly for high-risk decisions. RAG’s domain knowledge incorporation advances AI clinical tools in ophthalmology, though ophthalmologist-in-the-loop refinement is essential pre-deployment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: