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:

Reply to ‘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 1433 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank Cheng Tang et al. for their thoughtful comments on our study, “Benchmarking the performance of large language models in uveitis: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Google Gemini, and Anthropic Claude3” [1]. We appreciate the opportunity to address their valuable suggestions and clarify several points.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

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.

  2. Lim ZW, Pushpanathan K, Yew SME, Lai Y, Sun CH, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104770.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Temel MH, Erden Y, Bağ cıer F. Information quality and readability: ChatGPT’s responses to the most common questions about spinal cord injury. World Neurosurg. 2024;181:e1138–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (project code: 81570849 to LPC); Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province of China (project code: 2020A1515011413 to LPC); Overseas Famous Teachers Project 2021, Guangdong Province, China (project code:21-294 to LPC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shantou, Guangdong, China

    Fang-Fang Zhao, Han-Jie He & Jia-Jian Liang

  2. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Medical Immunology and Molecular Diagnostics, School of Medical Technology, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan, China

    Ling-Ping Cen

Authors
  1. Fang-Fang Zhao
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Han-Jie He
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jia-Jian Liang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ling-Ping Cen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ZFF wrote the letter. CLP, HHJ, and LJJ critically revised the letter.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ling-Ping Cen.

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

Zhao, FF., He, HJ., Liang, JJ. et al. Reply to ‘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, 1433 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-025-03737-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-025-03737-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links