LASIK Versus PRK Based on Increased Risk of Corneal Haze: Assessing Current Decision-Making Capabilities of Six Artificial Intelligence Models in Refractive Surgery.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY Journal of refractive surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.3928/1081597X-20240611-05
Majid Moshirfar, Kayvon A Moin, Soroush Omidvarnia, Spencer D Moulton, Preston B Willey, Isabella M Stoakes, Phillip C Hoopes
{"title":"LASIK Versus PRK Based on Increased Risk of Corneal Haze: Assessing Current Decision-Making Capabilities of Six Artificial Intelligence Models in Refractive Surgery.","authors":"Majid Moshirfar, Kayvon A Moin, Soroush Omidvarnia, Spencer D Moulton, Preston B Willey, Isabella M Stoakes, Phillip C Hoopes","doi":"10.3928/1081597X-20240611-05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the current decision-making capabilities of 6 different artificial intelligence (AI) models by assessing their refractive surgery recommendations (laser in-situ keratomileusis [LASIK] or photorefractive keratectomy [PRK]) for a theoretical patient with a history of keloid formation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Claude-2 (Anthropic, 2023), GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023), GPT-3.5 (OpenAI, 2022), Gemini 1.0 (Google DeepMind, 2023), Microsoft Copilot (Microsoft AI, 2023), and Google-PaLM (Google AI, 2022) underwent three systematic queries to determine the most appropriate surgical plan (LASIK or PRK) for a theoretical patient with an increasing manifest refraction of -3.50, -5.00, and -7.00 diopters (D) in both eyes, an uncomplicated ocular examination, and history of keloid formation. They were then tasked with providing published scientific references to support their responses. The AI models' recommendations were compared to those of a group of 6 experienced ophthalmologists, serving as a benchmark.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The group of ophthalmologists unanimously recommended LASIK (6/6 ophthalmologists), in contrast to the unanimous initial recommendation for PRK from the AI models (6/6 models). Of the 42 references provided by the AI models, 55% were fictitious and 45% were authentic. Only 1 of the 6 models altered its initial recommendation to LASIK when presented with the same patient with a history of keloid formation but with increasing severity of myopia (-3.50 to 5.00 to 7.00 D).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>It is evident that current AI models lack the critical-thinking abilities required to accurately analyze and assess apparent risk factors in clinical scenarios, such as the risk of corneal haze after PRK at higher levels of myopia, particularly in cases with a history of keloid formation. <b>[<i>J Refract Surg</i>. 2024;40(8):e533-e538.]</b>.</p>","PeriodicalId":16951,"journal":{"name":"Journal of refractive surgery","volume":"40 8","pages":"e533-e538"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of refractive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20240611-05","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the current decision-making capabilities of 6 different artificial intelligence (AI) models by assessing their refractive surgery recommendations (laser in-situ keratomileusis [LASIK] or photorefractive keratectomy [PRK]) for a theoretical patient with a history of keloid formation.

Methods: Claude-2 (Anthropic, 2023), GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023), GPT-3.5 (OpenAI, 2022), Gemini 1.0 (Google DeepMind, 2023), Microsoft Copilot (Microsoft AI, 2023), and Google-PaLM (Google AI, 2022) underwent three systematic queries to determine the most appropriate surgical plan (LASIK or PRK) for a theoretical patient with an increasing manifest refraction of -3.50, -5.00, and -7.00 diopters (D) in both eyes, an uncomplicated ocular examination, and history of keloid formation. They were then tasked with providing published scientific references to support their responses. The AI models' recommendations were compared to those of a group of 6 experienced ophthalmologists, serving as a benchmark.

Results: The group of ophthalmologists unanimously recommended LASIK (6/6 ophthalmologists), in contrast to the unanimous initial recommendation for PRK from the AI models (6/6 models). Of the 42 references provided by the AI models, 55% were fictitious and 45% were authentic. Only 1 of the 6 models altered its initial recommendation to LASIK when presented with the same patient with a history of keloid formation but with increasing severity of myopia (-3.50 to 5.00 to 7.00 D).

Discussion: It is evident that current AI models lack the critical-thinking abilities required to accurately analyze and assess apparent risk factors in clinical scenarios, such as the risk of corneal haze after PRK at higher levels of myopia, particularly in cases with a history of keloid formation. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(8):e533-e538.].

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于角膜混浊风险增加的 LASIK 与 PRK 对比:评估屈光手术中六种人工智能模型的当前决策能力。
目的:通过评估6种不同人工智能(AI)模型对有瘢痕疙瘩形成史的理论患者提出的屈光手术建议(激光原位角膜磨镶术(LASIK)或光屈光性角膜切除术(PRK)),研究它们目前的决策能力:Claude-2(Anthropic,2023年)、GPT-4(OpenAI,2023年)、GPT-3.5(OpenAI,2022年)、Gemini 1.0(Google DeepMind,2023年)、Microsoft Copilot(Microsoft AI,2023年)和Google-PaLM(Google AI,2022年)进行了三次系统查询,以确定最合适的手术方案(LASIK或PRK)。50、-5.00 和 -7.00 屈光度 (D),眼部检查不复杂,有瘢痕疙瘩形成史。然后,他们被要求提供已发表的科学参考文献来支持他们的回答。将人工智能模型的建议与由 6 位经验丰富的眼科医生组成的小组的建议进行比较,作为基准:结果:眼科医生小组一致推荐 LASIK(6/6 名眼科医生),而人工智能模型一致初步推荐 PRK(6/6 名模型)。在人工智能模型提供的 42 个参考文献中,55% 是虚构的,45% 是真实的。在 6 个模型中,只有 1 个模型在遇到有瘢痕疙瘩形成史但近视度数不断增加(-3.50 到 5.00 到 7.00 D)的同一患者时,改变了最初的建议,改为 LASIK:讨论:很明显,当前的人工智能模型缺乏必要的批判性思维能力,无法准确分析和评估临床场景中的明显风险因素,例如在近视度数较高的情况下,特别是在有瘢痕疙瘩形成史的病例中,PRK术后出现角膜混浊的风险。[J Refract Surg. 2024;40(8):e533-e538.].
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
160
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Refractive Surgery, the official journal of the International Society of Refractive Surgery, a partner of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, has been a monthly peer-reviewed forum for original research, review, and evaluation of refractive and lens-based surgical procedures for more than 30 years. Practical, clinically valuable articles provide readers with the most up-to-date information regarding advances in the field of refractive surgery. Begin to explore the Journal and all of its great benefits such as: • Columns including “Translational Science,” “Surgical Techniques,” and “Biomechanics” • Supplemental videos and materials available for many articles • Access to current articles, as well as several years of archived content • Articles posted online just 2 months after acceptance.
期刊最新文献
Visual and Safety Outcomes of Refractive Correction Procedures Following Lens Removal for Residual Refractive Error: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. 2024 Reviewers. A Nomogram to Improve the Predictability of High Myopic Astigmatism in Small Incision Lenticule Extraction Surgery. Application of the Taylor Diagram in Evaluating the Performance of IOL Formulas. Clarification of Femtosecond Laser Terminology: Energy, Fluence, Dose.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1