Key result
OpenAI-o1 outperforms humans on refractive surgery questions but shows no significant advantage over ChatGPT-4o.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to assess the accuracy of ChatGPT-4o and OpenAI-o1 in answering refractive surgery questions and evaluate whether their performance could meaningfully support clinical decision-making compared with ophthalmology residents and clinicians.
Do ChatGPT-4o and OpenAI-o1 improve accuracy in answering refractive surgery questions compared to human users?
RCT (n=228)
Randomized
Do ChatGPT-4o and OpenAI-o1 improve accuracy in answering refractive surgery questions compared to human users?
Both ChatGPT-4o and OpenAI-o1 significantly outperformed human users in answering refractive surgery questions, demonstrating accuracy that could potentially augment medical decision making.
May augment refractive surgery knowledge assessment; leaves open translation to clinical decisions or outcomes.
Background: To assess the accuracy of ChatGPT-4o and OpenAI-o1 in answering refractive surgery questions from the AAO BCSC Self-Assessment Program and to evaluate whether their performance could meaningfully support clinical decision making, we compared the models with 1983 ophthalmology residents and clinicians. Methods: A randomized, questionnaire-based study was conducted with 228 text-only questions from the Refractive Surgery section of the BCSC Self-Assessment Program. Each model received the prompt, “Please provide an answer to the following questions.” Accuracy was measured as the proportion of correct answers and reported with 95 percent confidence intervals. Differences between groups were assessed with the chi-squared test for independence and pairwise comparisons. Results: OpenAI-o1 achieved the highest score (91.2%, 95% CI 87.6–95.0%), followed by ChatGPT-4o (86.4%, 95% CI 81.9–90.9%) and the average score from 1983 users of the Refractive Surgery section of the BCSC Self-Assessment Program (77%, 95% CI 75.2–78.8%). Both language models significantly outperformed human users. The five-point margin of OpenAI-o1 over ChatGPT-4o did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.1045) but could represent one additional correct decision in twenty clinically relevant scenarios. Conclusions: Both ChatGPT-4o and OpenAI-o1 significantly outperformed BCSC Program users, demonstrating a level of accuracy that could augment medical decision making. Although OpenAI-o1 scored higher than ChatGPT-4o, the difference did not reach statistical significance. These findings indicate that the “advanced reasoning” architecture of OpenAI-o1 offers only incremental gains and underscores the need for prospective studies linking LLM recommendations to concrete clinical outcomes before routine deployment in refractive-surgery practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wallerstein et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Refractive surgery questions (n=228). OpenAI-o1 vs. ChatGPT-4o and human users was evaluated on Accuracy (proportion of correct answers) (p=0.1045). OpenAI-o1 achieved 91.2% accuracy on refractive surgery questions, outperforming human users (77%) but not significantly beating ChatGPT-4o (86.4%, p=0.1045).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: