Comparing generative and retrieval-based chatbots in answering patient questions regarding age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy

Background/aims To compare the performance of generative versus retrieval-based chatbots in answering patient inquiries regarding age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic retinopathy (DR). Methods We evaluated four chatbots: generative models (ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-3.5 and Google Bard) and a retrieval-based model (OcularBERT) in a cross-sectional study. Their response accuracy to 45 questions (15 AMD, 15 DR and 15 others) was evaluated and compared. Three masked retinal specialists graded the responses using a three-point Likert scale: either 2 (good, error-free), 1 (borderline) or 0 (poor with significant inaccuracies). The scores were aggregated, ranging from 0 to 6. Based on majority consensus among the graders, the responses were also classified as 'Good', 'Borderline' or 'Poor' quality. Results Overall, ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 outperformed the other chatbots, both achieving median scores (IQR) of 6 (1), compared with 4.5 (2) in Google Bard, and 2 (1) in OcularBERT (all p =8.4x10(-3)). Based on the consensus approach, 83.3% of ChatGPT-4' s responses and 86.7% of ChatGPT-3.5' s were rated as 'Good', surpassing Google Bard (50%) and OcularBERT (10%) (all p =1.4x10(-2)). ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 had no 'Poor' rated responses. Google Bard produced 6.7% Poor responses, and OcularBERT produced 20%. Across question types, ChatGPT-4 outperformed Google Bard only for AMD, and ChatGPT-3.5 outperformed Google Bard for DR and others. Conclusion ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 demonstrated superior performance, followed by Google Bard and OcularBERT. Generative chatbots are potentially capable of answering domain-specific questions outside their original training. Further validation studies are still required prior to real-world implementation.