Purpose
To assess whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can reproduce classical intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations and provide usable backup guidance when standard calculators are unavailable or for educational purposes.
Design
Methods-comparison feasibility study.
Methods
From a public IOLMaster 700 dataset, 180 eyes were sampled and stratified by axial length and anterior chamber depth. IOL powers were computed by device Sanders–Retzlaff–Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T) (reference), Barrett Universal II (APACRS), and three MLLMs (ChatGPT-5, Gemini-2.5-Pro, ChatGPT-4o) using identical biometry. Agreement metrics included mean absolute error (MAE) and the proportion within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 D versus device SRK/T.
Results
ChatGPT-5 and Gemini-2.5-Pro implemented SRK/T using effective lens position estimation and a vergence approach, whereas ChatGPT-4o defaulted to SRK I unless tightly constrained. ChatGPT-5 showed near-reference agreement with SRK/T (MAE 0.30 D; 78.8% within ±0.50 D vs SRK/T), while Gemini-2.5-Pro and ChatGPT-4o had larger errors. Subgroup analyses across axial length–anterior chamber depth strata showed that ChatGPT-5 did not differ significantly from SRK/T after Bonferroni correction, whereas Gemini-2.5-Pro and ChatGPT-4o exhibited significant positive biases in long and short eyes. Agreement patterns were similar when Barrett Universal II was used as the secondary comparator.
Conclusion
MLLMs, particularly ChatGPT-5, may provide a portable, stepwise backup for classical IOL power calculation (SRK/T). MLLMs may offer educational value and serve as a secondary check on conventional calculations but should not replace validated biometry platforms, especially in eyes with extreme biometry. Prospective, outcome-based validation and usability testing are warranted before any real-world clinical deployment.
扫码关注我们
求助内容:
应助结果提醒方式:
