Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Comment on: “Benchmarking the performance of large language models in uveitis: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Google Gemini, and Anthropic Claude3”

Eye volume 39, page 1432 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

TO THE EDITOR:

We read with interest the article “Benchmarking the performance of large language models in uveitis: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Google Gemini, and Anthropic Claude3” by Zhao et al. [1]. We extend our sincere appreciation to the authors for their substantial efforts and significant contributions to evaluating the performance of different Large Language Models (LLMs) in providing uveitis-related information. Nevertheless, we wish to present a few methodological considerations that might enhance future evaluations in this field.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Zhao FF, He HJ, Liang JJ, Cen J, Wang Y, Lin H, et al. Benchmarking the performance of large language models in uveitis: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Google Gemini, and Anthropic Claude3. Eye. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-03545-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Liang R, Zhao A, Peng L, Xu X, Zhong J, Wu F, et al. Enhanced artificial intelligence strategies in renal oncology: iterative optimization and comparative analysis of GPT 3.5 Versus 4.0. Ann Surg Oncol. 2024;31:3887–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Temel MH, Erden Y, Bağcıer F. Information quality and readability: ChatGPT’s responses to the most common questions about spinal cord injury. World Neurosurg. 2024;181:e1138–e44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Şahin MF, Topkaç EC, Doğan Ç, Şeramet S, Özcan R, Akgül M, et al. Still using only ChatGPT? The comparison of five different artificial intelligence chatbots’ answers to the most common questions about kidney stones. J Endourol. 2024;38:1172–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53:105–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. China Three Gorges University, Yichang, China

    Xiao Luo

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, The First Clinical Medical College of Three Gorges University, Yichang, China

    Cheng Tang

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, Yichang Central People’s Hospital, Yichang, China

    Jin-Jin Chen, Jin Yuan, Jin-Jin Huang & Tao Yan

Authors
  1. Xiao Luo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cheng Tang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jin-Jin Chen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jin Yuan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jin-Jin Huang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tao Yan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

XL wrote the letter. CT, JJC, JY, JJH, and TY provided feedback on the letter.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tao Yan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luo, X., Tang, C., Chen, JJ. et al. Comment on: “Benchmarking the performance of large language models in uveitis: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Google Gemini, and Anthropic Claude3”. Eye 39, 1432 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-025-03736-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-025-03736-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links