An Eye for A Foot: Alarming Unawareness of Diabetic Retinopathy Among Diabetic Foot Patients.

This study aims to determine the awareness of diabetic retinopathy in patients hospitalized for diabetic foot ulcers, examine their clinical and demographic characteristics, and evaluate their treatment needs. In this prospective study, 62 consequent patients with diabetic foot ulcers who were hospitalized for further treatment in Diabetic Foot Department between June and August 2023 were subjected to ophthalmological examinations. Detailed anterior and posterior segment examinations were performed. Clinical and demographic characteristics and HbA1c levels were recorded. Thirty-nine patients (62.9%) were male and 23 (37.1%) were female. The mean age was 61 ± 11.4 years. The patients had diabetes mellitus (DM) for an average of 19.2 ± 9.6 years. The average HbA1c value of the patients was 9 ± 2.3%. Minor amputation was performed in 35 of 62 patients (56.5%) during treatment. Thirty-one patients (50%) were unaware of the risk of diabetic retinopathy. Of those "unaware" 31 patients, 26 (83.9%) had diabetic retinopathy. Diabetic retinopathy was detected in 57 patients (91.9%) and 3-month interval ophthalmological follow-up screening was recommended for 77 eyes. Eighty percent of the patients never had ophthalmological examination. Intravitreal (IV) injection was performed in 44 eyes, panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) in 2 eyes, and intravenous injection + PRP + vitreoretinal surgery in one eye. Diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic retinopathy are often accompanied by each other. Patients should be informed about this and strongly encouraged to undergo routine ophthalmological examinations, especially when they have advanced diabetic foot disease. Diabetic foot surgeons should keep in mind that a poor eye cannot detect diabetic foot problems.

Assessing the proficiency of artificial intelligence programs in the diagnosis and treatment of cornea, conjunctiva, and eyelid diseases and exploring the advantages of each other benefits.

PURPOSE: It was aimed to determine the knowledge level of ChatGPT, Bing, and Bard artificial intelligence programs related to corneal, conjunctival, and eyelid diseases and treatment modalities, to examine their reliability and superiority to each other. METHODS: Forty-one questions related to corneal, conjunctival, and eyelid diseases and treatment modalities were asked to the ChatGPT, Bing, and Bard chatbots. The answers to the questions were compared with the answer keys and grouped as correct or incorrect. Accuracy rates were compared. RESULTS: ChatGPT gave the correct answer to 51.2 % of the questions asked, Bing gave the correct answer to 53.7 %, and Bard gave the correct answer to 68.3 %. There was no significant difference in the rate of correct or incorrect answers to the questions asked for the 3 artificial intelligence chatbots (p = 0.208, Pearson's chi-square test). CONCLUSION: Although information about the cornea, conjunctiva, and eyelid diseases and treatment modalities can be accessed quickly and accurately using up-to-date artificial intelligence programs, the answers may not always be accurate and up-to-date. Care should be taken when evaluating this information.

A comparative study on the knowledge levels of artificial intelligence programs in diagnosing ophthalmic pathologies and intraocular tumors evaluated their superiority and potential utility.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to test the knowledge levels of ChatGPT, Bing, and Bard artificial intelligence chatbots, which have been released by three different manufacturers, about ophthalmic pathologies and intraocular tumors, to test their usability and to investigate the presence of superiority to each other. METHODS: Thirty-six questions were obtained from the American Academy and Ophthalmology 2022-2023 Basic and Clinical Science Course Ophthalmic Pathology and Intraocular Tumor study questions section. Each question was asked separately for the ChatGPT, Bing, and Bard artificial intelligence programs. Answers to the questions were categorized as correct or incorrect. The statistical relationship between the correct and incorrect response rates of the artificial intelligence programs was determined. RESULTS: From the artificial intelligence chatbots, ChatGPT gave the correct answer to 58.6% of the questions asked, Bing gave the correct answer to 63.9%, and Bard gave the correct answer to 69.4%. No statistical significance was found between the rates of correct answers to the questions in all 3 artificial intelligence programs (p = 0.705, Pearson Chi-square test). CONCLUSION: Artificial intelligence chatbots can be used to access information related to ophthalmic pathologies and intraocular tumors. However, in the evaluation of the data, it should be noted that not all questions can be answered correctly. Care should be taken when examining the answers.

Assessing the Competence of Artificial Intelligence Programs in Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus and Comparing their Relative Advantages.

Objective: The aim of the study was to determine the knowledge levels of ChatGPT, Bing, and Bard artificial intelligence programs produced by three different manufacturers regarding pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus and to compare their strengths and weaknesses. Methods: Forty-four questions testing the knowledge levels of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus were asked in ChatGPT, Bing, and Bard artificial intelligence programs. Questions were grouped as correct or incorrect. The accuracy rates were statistically compared. Results: ChatGPT chatbot gave 59.1% correct answers, Bing chatbot gave 70.5% correct answers, and Bard chatbot gave 72.7% correct answers to the questions asked. No significant difference was observed between the rates of correct answers to the questions in all 3 artificial intelligence programs (p=0.343, Pearson's chi-square test). Conclusion: Although information about pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus can be accessed using current artificial intelligence programs, the answers given may not always be accurate. Care should always be taken when evaluating this information.