Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 44 references

ChatMyopia: An AI Agent for Pre-consultation Education in Primary Eye Care Settings

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read ChatMyopia, an LLM agent that answers myopia questions and grades fundus images, improved patient satisfaction in a 70-patient randomized trial and matched specialists on standardized exams.

desk verdict Useful integrated myopia-education agent with an honest RCT, but the satisfaction result is confounded by format and clinician attention; read it as 'tablet tool beats leaflet,' not 'ChatMyopia content beats leaflet.' read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19498 v1 pith:6JA4Q65H submitted 2025-06-06 cs.HC cs.AI

Yue Wu , Xiaolan Chen , Weiyi Zhang , Shunming Liu , Wing Man Rita Sum , Xinyuan Wu , Xianwen Shang , Chea-su Kee
show 2 more authors
Mingguang He Danli Shi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords largelanguagemodelAIagentmyopiapatienteducationrandomizedcontrolledtrialretrieval-augmentedgenerationmyopicmaculopathygradingeyecare
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

ChatMyopia is an AI agent built for pre-consultation education about myopia. The paper claims that in a randomized trial with 70 patients, using ChatMyopia on a tablet for ten minutes before seeing an eye care practitioner raised patient satisfaction (measured by the C-MISS-R scale) compared with traditional leaflets, with the difference significant at p=0.018. The paper also reports that ChatMyopia scored comparably to myopia specialists on standardized single-choice examinations, outperformed general eye care practitioners on knowledge and scenario questions, and produced more contextually appropriate, safer answers than GPT-4 on 85 common myopia questions. If these results hold, they show that a tool-based LLM agent with an image classifier and a retrieval-augmented knowledge base can serve as a scalable, interpretable supplement to human counseling in primary eye care.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the agent architecture itself: a large language model (Mistral 123B) acts as the 'brain' that interprets the patient's question, plans a task, and calls one of two specialized tools. The first tool is a ViT-large image classifier, a Vision Transformer with 24 layers, initialized with EyeFound pretrained weights and fine-tuned on 2,769 fundus images, that grades myopic maculopathy into five categories following the META-PM classification system. The second tool is a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipeline that encodes queries with multilingual embeddings, searches a knowledge base built from 12 ophthalmology textbooks and 61 clinical guidelines via FAISS cosine similarity, and inserts the retrieved chunks into the prompt. The agent also appends follow-up questions to foster dialogue. What makes this architecture central is that instead of fine-tuning the LLM, the authors add a deterministic, inspectable tool layer, which they argue is cheaper to update and easier to verify, and which they credit with the accuracy and safety gains over a general-purpose LLM.

What would settle it

A randomized trial comparing ChatMyopia not with a leaflet but with an equally interactive tablet application that presents the same educational content without AI (for example, a fixed set of answers and images) would directly test the content-attribution assumption; if satisfaction is equal in the two interactive arms, the paper's claim that the AI agent specifically improves satisfaction would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that an LLM-based agent can be assembled for a specific ophthalmic domain and can perform for patient education at a level comparable to, and in some dimensions better than, human practitioners and general-purpose LLMs. The paper demonstrates this in three evaluations: myopic maculopathy grading with an overall AUROC of 0.967 and accuracy of 0.934; a 150-question standardized exam on which ChatMyopia scored 80 vs. 67.07 for general eye care practitioners and 78.67 for specialists; and a blinded human evaluation of 85 open-ended questions on which ChatMyopia scored significantly higher than GPT-4 overall (p<0.001) and comparably to eye care practitioners on utility, relevance, safety, and harmlessness. The randomized controlled trial then shows a significant satisfaction benefit in a real clinic, with the cognitive subscale of the C-MISS-R showing the largest improvement (p=0.013). The authors interpret these results as evidence that a transparent, tool-augmented agent can reduce the information gap before consultation without requiring a new foundation model.

Load-bearing premise

The observed satisfaction improvement is assumed to come from ChatMyopia's educational content rather than from the novelty of using a tablet, the extra attention patients get when an AI tool is present, or other non-content effects, because the trial was single-blinded and used only a static leaflet as the control.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In primary eye care settings, a 10-minute pre-consultation interaction with ChatMyopia can raise patient satisfaction and perceived understanding of eye conditions relative to printed leaflets, with both the cognitive and affective subscales of the C-MISS-R showing gains.
  • An AI agent that uses retrieval-augmented knowledge plus an image-grade tool can match specialist-level performance on standardized myopia knowledge questions, suggesting that domain-specific agents can substitute for task-specific fine-tuned models.
  • For common myopia questions, the agent's answers are rated safer and more contextually appropriate than GPT-4's, indicating that general-purpose LLMs carry avoidable clinical risk in this setting.
  • The system's interpretable pipeline—each diagnostic or textual answer can be traced to a retrieved source or a heatmap—makes it possible for clinicians to review and correct agent output, which the paper argues is a precondition for clinical deployment.
  • The trial did not find a significant reduction in decision conflict, so the agent's satisfaction benefit is not automatically a decision-support benefit.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: We infer that the satisfaction benefit would shrink if the control group received an equally interactive, non-AI tablet app; the paper's single-blinded design with a leaflet control cannot rule this out.
  • Editorial inference: We infer that the agent's reported weak spots—red light therapy and refractive-surgery pre-operative questions—are exactly where the static knowledge base lags the current literature, so a version with scheduled knowledge refreshes would likely close that gap.
  • Editorial inference: We infer that the same tool-scheduling architecture generalizes to other ophthalmic imaging tasks, such as OCT or fluorescein angiography, since the interface between the planner and tools is model-agnostic and the paper already notes this extension.
  • Editorial inference: We infer that a cost-effectiveness trial measuring consultation time and referral rates is needed to know whether the ten-minute AI interaction is a net time saver for clinics; the paper measured satisfaction only.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript describes ChatMyopia, an LLM-based agent that combines a myopic maculopathy image classifier with a retrieval-augmented knowledge base to answer myopia-related text and image queries. The authors evaluate the system on an image grading task, national-exam single-choice questions against eye care practitioners, open-ended patient questions against GPT-4 and ECPs, and a randomized trial (n=70) comparing patient satisfaction (C-MISS-R) with traditional leaflets. They report significantly higher satisfaction in the ChatMyopia arm and comparable or superior accuracy to general ECPs.

Significance. If the effectiveness claim is valid, ChatMyopia would be a useful supplement for pre-consultation education in primary eye care. The work has notable strengths: the RCT is pre-registered, the primary outcome uses a validated instrument with a sample size calculation from a pilot, the SCQ questions come from external national exam materials, and the open-ended evaluation uses blinded specialist raters. The RAG-based architecture with a dynamically invoked image tool is pragmatic and the interpretability argument (heatmaps, traceable tool calls) is reasonable. However, the internal validity of the RCT—the paper's central empirical claim—is undermined by an uncontrolled comparison: the intervention differs from control in delivery format, novelty, and ECP attention. This makes the size of the content-specific effect uncertain.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods: Randomized controlled trial for real-world validation; Fig. 4] The intervention group's 10-minute tablet interaction with ChatMyopia is compared to a paper-leaflet control, and ECPs in the intervention arm 'monitored ChatMyopia's responses and addressed any areas requiring further clarification.' This means the comparison conflates educational content with delivery format, novelty of an interactive AI tool, and differential ECP attention. Because the primary outcome is self-reported satisfaction, the observed p=0.018 could be explained by these non-content mechanisms. The Limitations section acknowledges single-blinding but does not address the ECP-monitoring asymmetry or the lack of a digital-control arm. The central claim that ChatMyopia improves satisfaction requires either a control that uses an equally interactive non-AI digital tool or measurement/statistical adjustment for ECP attention and consultation duration.
  2. [Methods: Randomized controlled trial for real-world validation; Statistical analysis] The randomization is described only as 'simple random sampling' with no mention of sequence generation, allocation concealment, or who performed randomization. The trial is single-blinded, but the paper does not state whether the outcome assessors who collected the C-MISS-R were blinded to allocation. Given that the primary outcome is a subjective self-report, these omissions leave room for bias and should be reported per CONSORT guidelines. Without this information, the reader cannot fully assess the risk of bias in the primary result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Results: Performance in SCQ examination] The sentence 'Post hoc comparisons indicated that ChatMyopia outperformed general ECPs (C-MISS-R score = 80 vs. 67.07, p = 0.029)' uses 'C-MISS-R score' for what should be the SCQ total score; this is a labeling error that will confuse readers.
  2. [Methods: Architecture of the ChatMyopia AI agent; Performance evaluation] The exact versions of Mistral (e.g., Mistral Large 123B vs. Mixtral) and GPT-4 (e.g., gpt-4-0613) are not specified; the authors should include model identifiers and access dates for reproducibility.
  3. [Methods: Randomized controlled trial for real-world validation] The description 'simple random sampling' should be elaborated with the random sequence generation method and allocation concealment mechanism, in line with CONSORT reporting standards.
  4. [Methods: Establishment of tool modules] The phrase 'we utilized two public datasets (MMAC, HPMI, and our private dataset)' should read 'two public datasets and one private dataset' to be grammatically and logically correct.
  5. [Figure 3 caption] The caption does not indicate what the error bars or whiskers represent in panels B and C; this information should be added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: performance claims rest on external benchmarks and an RCT; self-citations appear but are not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained against independent evidence. Image-classification performance is computed on a held-out test split of public datasets (MMAC, HPMI) with externally labeled ground truth and standard metrics (AUROC 0.967, accuracy 0.934). SCQ performance is scored against 150 questions from Chinese national-board preparation materials, with human ECP and specialist comparators; no ChatMyopia parameter was fitted to these exam scores. Open-ended question-answering is judged by two blinded specialists on five published criteria, with GPT-4 and ECP comparators. The RCT primary outcome is a validated, externally developed questionnaire (C-MISS-R) with p=0.018; the sample-size calculation uses a pilot estimate, but the reported effect is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations appear in the use of EyeFound pretrained weights [26], in the five evaluation criteria 'adapted from our previous study[14] and Luo et al.'s study[29]', and in the statement that a previous in-house experiment found RAG matched fine-tuning, motivating the RAG framework. These are real supporting artifacts or design justifications, not reductions of the target results to their own inputs: the evaluation rubric is a scoring instrument, the pretrained weights are an initialization, and the RAG-effectiveness premise is not the claim being validated. The acknowledged single-blind design and the absence of a digital-format control arm (with ECPs in the intervention arm monitoring ChatMyopia's responses) pose an internal-validity threat to the RCT satisfaction claim, since novelty or extra attention could explain the difference; however, that is a study-design confound, not a circular derivation. No equation or construction in the paper equates a predicted outcome with its input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rely on psychometric assumptions, knowledge-base accuracy, and design assumptions about the RCT. There are no free parameters fitted to the primary outcome and no new theoretical entities. The image classification model is a trained system, but its parameters are not hand-tuned free parameters in the sense of the central claim.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Chinese version of the Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale-Revised (C-MISS-R) is a valid and reliable measure of patient satisfaction.
    The primary outcome depends entirely on this psychometric instrument; the paper cites its development and validation for Hong Kong populations but does not independently validate it in this trial.
  • domain assumption The Myopia Knowledge Database built from textbooks, clinical guidelines, and expert consensus contains accurate and up-to-date information for the questions tested.
    The RAG tool's answers are only as good as the curated sources. The paper describes the sources but does not audit them for completeness or correctness beyond selective expert review.
  • domain assumption The single-blinded randomized design provides an unbiased estimate of the intervention effect on satisfaction.
    Participants knew whether they received the tablet tool or the leaflet, so novelty effects or differential attention from ECPs could inflate the measured satisfaction. The authors acknowledge this limitation.
  • domain assumption Two blinded specialists' ratings on a 3-point scale reliably capture the safety and harmlessness of AI-generated medical advice.
    Human ratings of safety are subjective and may not predict actual clinical harm. The paper does not provide objective outcome data such as referral rates or adverse events.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ChatMyopia: An AI Agent for Pre-consultation Education in Primary Eye Care Settings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6JA4Q65H

@misc{pith2026250719498,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ChatMyopia: An AI Agent for Pre-consultation Education in Primary Eye Care Settings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6JA4Q65H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19498}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) show promise for tailored healthcare communication but face challenges in interpretability and multi-task integration particularly for domain-specific needs like myopia, and their real-world effectiveness as patient education tools has yet to be demonstrated. Here, we introduce ChatMyopia, an LLM-based AI agent designed to address text and image-based inquiries related to myopia. To achieve this, ChatMyopia integrates an image classification tool and a retrieval-augmented knowledge base built from literature, expert consensus, and clinical guidelines. Myopic maculopathy grading task, single question examination and human evaluations validated its ability to deliver personalized, accurate, and safe responses to myopia-related inquiries with high scalability and interpretability. In a randomized controlled trial (n=70, NCT06607822), ChatMyopia significantly improved patient satisfaction compared to traditional leaflets, enhancing patient education in accuracy, empathy, disease awareness, and patient-eyecare practitioner communication. These findings highlight ChatMyopia's potential as a valuable supplement to enhance patient education and improve satisfaction with medical services in primary eye care settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19498 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Study overview of the ChatMyopia AI system’s framework and evaluation (A) Architecture of the ChatMyopia AI agent. ChatMyopia is powered by a large language model (LLM) to interpret inquiries, decompose complex tasks, plan, invoke [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance comparison of ChatMyopia in single-choice question exam (SCQ) and patient-centered question-answering. (A) SCQ performance. Total scores, knowledge-based question scores, and reasoning￾based question scores were compared across ChatMyopia, general ECPs, and specialists using 150 myopia-related SCQs from national exams. Each dot represents the mean score for each group across three simulated examinations.… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Health literacy and ophthalmology: A scoping review

    Iskander M, Hu G, Coulon S, Seixas AA, McGowan R, Al-Aswad LA. Health literacy and ophthalmology: A scoping review. Survey of Ophthalmology. 2023;68:78–103

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis

    Zolnierek KBH, Dimatteo MR. Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 2009;47:826–34

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Can Patients Trust Online Health Information? A Meta-narrative Systematic Review Addressing the Quality of Health Information on the Internet

    Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, Beuschel B, Farah MH, Katabi A, et al. Can Patients Trust Online Health Information? A Meta-narrative Systematic Review Addressing the Quality of Health Information on the Internet. J GEN INTERN MED. 2019;34:1884–91

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Health Literacy and Use and Trust in Health Information

    Chen X, Hay JL, Waters EA, Kiviniemi MT, Biddle C, Schofield E, et al. Health Literacy and Use and Trust in Health Information. J Health Commun. 2018;23:724–34

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    The influence of online health information on health decisions: A systematic review

    Thapa DK, Visentin DC, Kornhaber R, West S, Cleary M. The influence of online health information on health decisions: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling. 2021;104:770–84

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Large language models and their impact in ophthalmology

    Betzler BK, Chen H, Cheng C-Y , Lee CS, Ning G, Song SJ, et al. Large language models and their impact in ophthalmology. Lancet Digit Health. 2023;5:e917–24. 23

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Evaluating large language models and agents in healthcare: key challenges in clinical applications

    Chen X, Xiang J, Lu S, Liu Y , He M, Shi D. Evaluating large language models and agents in healthcare: key challenges in clinical applications. Intelligent Medicine. 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Benchmarking large language models’ performances for myopia care: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, and Google Bard

    Lim ZW, Pushpanathan K, Yew SME, Lai Y , Sun C-H, Lam JSH, et al. Benchmarking large language models’ performances for myopia care: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, and Google Bard. eBioMedicine. 2023;95:104770

    work page 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Assessing the utility of ChatGPT as an artificial intelligence‐based large language model for information to answer questions on myopia

    Biswas S, Logan NS, Davies LN, Sheppard AL, Wolffsohn JS. Assessing the utility of ChatGPT as an artificial intelligence‐based large language model for information to answer questions on myopia. Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic. 2023;43:1562–70

    2023

  2. [10]

    Unveiling the clinical incapabilities: a benchmarking study of GPT-4V(ision) for ophthalmic multimodal image analysis

    Xu P, Chen X, Zhao Z, Shi D. Unveiling the clinical incapabilities: a benchmarking study of GPT-4V(ision) for ophthalmic multimodal image analysis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2024;108:1384–9

    2024

  3. [11]

    ChatFFA: An ophthalmic chat system for unified vision-language understanding and question answering for fundus fluorescein angiography

    Chen X, Xu P, Li Y , Zhang W, Song F, He M, et al. ChatFFA: An ophthalmic chat system for unified vision-language understanding and question answering for fundus fluorescein angiography. iScience. 2024;27:110021

    2024

  4. [12]

    FFA-GPT: an automated pipeline for fundus fluorescein angiography interpretation and question-answer

    Chen X, Zhang W, Xu P , Zhao Z, Zheng Y , Shi D, et al. FFA-GPT: an automated pipeline for fundus fluorescein angiography interpretation and question-answer. npj Digit Med. 2024;7:111

    2024

  5. [13]

    ICGA-GPT: report generation and question answering for indocyanine green angiography images

    Chen X, Zhang W, Zhao Z, Xu P, Zheng Y , Shi D, et al. ICGA-GPT: report generation and question answering for indocyanine green angiography images. Br J Ophthalmol. 2024;108:1450–6

    2024

  6. [14]

    EyeGPT for Patient Inquiries and Medical Education: Development and Validation of an Ophthalmology Large Language Model

    Chen X, Zhao Z, Zhang W, Xu P, Wu Y , Xu M, et al. EyeGPT for Patient Inquiries and Medical Education: Development and Validation of an Ophthalmology Large Language Model. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e60063

    2024

  7. [15]

    Development and evaluation of a large language model of ophthalmology in Chinese

    Zheng C, Ye H, Guo J, Yang J, Fei P, Yuan Y , et al. Development and evaluation of a large language model of ophthalmology in Chinese. Br J Ophthalmol. 2024;108:1390–7. 24

    2024

  8. [16]

    A foundation model for generalizable disease detection from retinal images

    Zhou Y , Chia MA, Wagner SK, Ayhan MS, Williamson DJ, Struyven RR, et al. A foundation model for generalizable disease detection from retinal images. Nature. 2023;622:156–63

    2023

  9. [17]

    Empowering biomedical discovery with AI agents

    Gao S, Fang A, Huang Y , Giunchiglia V , Noori A, Schwarz JR, et al. Empowering biomedical discovery with AI agents. Cell. 2024;187:6125–51

    2024

  10. [18]

    Smartboard: Visual Exploration of Team Tactics with LLM Agent

    Liu Z, Xie X, He M, Zhao W, Wu Y , Cheng L, et al. Smartboard: Visual Exploration of Team Tactics with LLM Agent. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics. 2025;31:23–33

    2025

  11. [19]

    Small LLMs Are Weak Tool Learners: A Multi-LLM Agent

    Shen W, Li C, Chen H, Yan M, Quan X, Chen H, et al. Small LLMs Are Weak Tool Learners: A Multi-LLM Agent. 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    MMedAgent: Learning to Use Medical Tools with Multi-modal Agent

    Li B, Yan T, Pan Y , Luo J, Ji R, Ding J, et al. MMedAgent: Learning to Use Medical Tools with Multi-modal Agent. 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    A Competition for the Diagnosis of Myopic Maculopathy by Artificial Intelligence Algorithms

    Qian B, Sheng B, Chen H, Wang X, Li T, Jin Y , et al. A Competition for the Diagnosis of Myopic Maculopathy by Artificial Intelligence Algorithms. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2024;142:1006–15

    2024

  14. [22]

    HPMI: A retinal fundus image dataset for identification of high and pathological myopia based on deep learning

    Huang S, Li Z, Lin B, Zhang S, Yi Q, Wang L. HPMI: A retinal fundus image dataset for identification of high and pathological myopia based on deep learning. 2023. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24800232.v2

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Three-Dimensional Eye Shape, Myopic Maculopathy, and Visual Acuity: The Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center–Brien Holden Vision Institute High Myopia Cohort Study

    Guo X, Xiao O, Chen Y , Wu H, Chen L, Morgan IG, et al. Three-Dimensional Eye Shape, Myopic Maculopathy, and Visual Acuity: The Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center–Brien Holden Vision Institute High Myopia Cohort Study. Ophthalmology. 2017;124:679–87

    2017

  16. [24]

    Diagnosis and Treatment of Myopic Maculopathy

    Yokoi T, Ohno-Matsui K. Diagnosis and Treatment of Myopic Maculopathy. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2018;7:415–21

    2018

  17. [25]

    International Photographic Classification and Grading System for Myopic Maculopathy

    Ohno-Matsui K, Kawasaki R, Jonas JB, Cheung CMG, Saw S-M, Verhoeven VJM, et al. International Photographic Classification and Grading System for Myopic Maculopathy. 25 American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2015;159:877-883.e7

    2015

  18. [26]

    EyeFound: A Multimodal Generalist Foundation Model for Ophthalmic Imaging

    Shi D, Zhang W, Chen X, Liu Y , Yang J, Huang S, et al. EyeFound: A Multimodal Generalist Foundation Model for Ophthalmic Imaging. 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    rwightman/pytorch-image- models: v0.8.10dev0 Release

    Wightman R, Raw N, Soare A, Arora A, Ha C, Reich C, et al. rwightman/pytorch-image- models: v0.8.10dev0 Release. 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    An Empirical Evaluation of Large Language Models on Consumer Health Questions

    Abrar M, Sermet Y , Demir I. An Empirical Evaluation of Large Language Models on Consumer Health Questions. BioMedInformatics. 2025;5:12

    2025

  21. [29]

    Development and evaluation of a retrieval-augmented large language model framework for ophthalmology

    Luo M-J, Pang J, Bi S, Lai Y , Zhao J, Shang Y , et al. Development and evaluation of a retrieval-augmented large language model framework for ophthalmology. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2024;142:798–805

    2024

  22. [30]

    Brief communication: The Chinese medical interview satisfaction scale-revised (C-MISS-R): Development and validation

    Lam WWT, Fielding R, Chow L, Chan M, Leung GM, Ho EYY . Brief communication: The Chinese medical interview satisfaction scale-revised (C-MISS-R): Development and validation. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1187–92

    2005

  23. [31]

    The medical interview satisfaction scale: Development of a scale to measure patient perceptions of physician behavior

    Wolf MH, Putnam SM, James SA, Stiles WB. The medical interview satisfaction scale: Development of a scale to measure patient perceptions of physician behavior. J Behav Med. 1978;1:391–401

    1978

  24. [32]

    O’ Connor, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute

    A.M. O’ Connor, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. User manual – Decision Conflict Scale (16 item question format). 1993. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/ develop/User_Manuals/

    1993

  25. [33]

    IMI-Global Trends in Myopia Management Attitudes and Strategies in Clinical Practice-2022 Update

    Wolffsohn JS, Whayeb Y , Logan NS, Weng R, International Myopia Institute Ambassador Group*. IMI-Global Trends in Myopia Management Attitudes and Strategies in Clinical Practice-2022 Update. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2023;64:6

    2022

  26. [34]

    Review: Myopia control strategies recommendations from the 2018 WHO/IAPB/BHVI Meeting on Myopia

    Ang M, Flanagan JL, Wong CW, Müller A, Davis A, Keys D, et al. Review: Myopia control strategies recommendations from the 2018 WHO/IAPB/BHVI Meeting on Myopia. Br 26 J Ophthalmol. 2020;:bjophthalmol-2019-315575

    2018

  27. [35]

    Will treating progressive myopia overwhelm the eye care workforce? A workforce modelling study

    Lingham G, Loughman J, Kuzmenko S, Biba M, Flitcroft DI. Will treating progressive myopia overwhelm the eye care workforce? A workforce modelling study. Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic. 2022;42:1092–102

    2022

  28. [36]

    Outlining the Borders for LLM Applications in Patient Education: Developing an Expert-in-the-Loop LLM-Powered Chatbot for Prostate Cancer Patient Education

    Hao Y , Holmes J, Waddle M, Yu N, Vickers K, Preston H, et al. Outlining the Borders for LLM Applications in Patient Education: Developing an Expert-in-the-Loop LLM-Powered Chatbot for Prostate Cancer Patient Education. 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    The Emerging Role of AI in Patient Education: A Comparative Analysis of LLM Accuracy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

    Rahimli Ocakoglu S, Coskun B. The Emerging Role of AI in Patient Education: A Comparative Analysis of LLM Accuracy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Med Princ Pract. 2024;33:330–7

    2024

  30. [38]

    LMOD: A Large Multimodal Ophthalmology Dataset and Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models

    Qin Z, Yin Y , Campbell D, Wu X, Zou K, Tham Y-C, et al. LMOD: A Large Multimodal Ophthalmology Dataset and Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models. 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Shared decision-making and its influencing factors among parents of children with cancer in China: A cross-sectional study

    Han J, Zhou X, Tang D, Liu T, Liu K. Shared decision-making and its influencing factors among parents of children with cancer in China: A cross-sectional study. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2024;69:102512

    2024

  32. [40]

    Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making

    Hager P, Jungmann F, Holland R, Bhagat K, Hubrecht I, Knauer M, et al. Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making. Nature Medicine. 2024;30:2613–22

    2024

  33. [41]

    Preferences of patients for patient centred approach to consultation in primary care: observational study

    Little P. Preferences of patients for patient centred approach to consultation in primary care: observational study. BMJ. 2001;322:468–468

    2001

  34. [42]

    The importance of understanding the impact of preference in clinical trials of diabetes interventions

    Reaney M. The importance of understanding the impact of preference in clinical trials of diabetes interventions. Journal of Diabetes. 2014;6:496–8

    2014

  35. [43]

    Outpatient reception via collaboration between nurses and a large language model: a randomized controlled trial

    Wan P, Huang Z, Tang W, Nie Y , Pei D, Deng S, et al. Outpatient reception via collaboration between nurses and a large language model: a randomized controlled trial. 27 Nature Medicine. 2024;30:2878–85

    2024

  36. [44]

    Impact of online physician service quality on patients’ adoption behavior across different stages: An elaboration likelihood perspective

    Chen Q, Jin J, Yan X. Impact of online physician service quality on patients’ adoption behavior across different stages: An elaboration likelihood perspective. Decision Support Systems. 2024;176:114048. 28 Figure 1. Study overview of the ChatMyopia AI system ’s framework and e...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.