Evaluation of AI Citation Accuracy in Anterior Segment Research

Authors: Mustafa Civelekler; Mehmet Çıtırık
Authors place of work: University of Health Sciences, Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology, Ankara, Türkiye
Published in the journal: Čes. a slov. Oftal., 82, 2026, No. Ahead of Print, p. 1-5
Category: Původní práce
doi: https://doi.org/10.31348/2026/21

Summary

Aims: To conduct a pilot evaluation of the citation accuracy of four contemporary artificial intelligence (AI) models –⁠ ChatGPT (OpenAI GPT-5.1), Copilot (Microsoft Copilot 4.2), DeepSeek (DeepSeek-R1), and Gemini (Google Gemini Ultra 2.5) –⁠ in generating PubMed-style references for corneal, conjunctival, and eyelid disease research, and to identify common error patterns.

Material and Methods: Thirty-five standardized clinical paragraphs were selected from The Review of Ophthalmology (4th edition). Each AI model was prompted to generate AMA 11-style references relevant to the provided text, simulating a literature retrieval task. Generated citations were assessed for accuracy, DOI matching, and clinical relevance. In a second validation phase, citations were independently reviewed by two ophthalmology experts and classified as fully cited, partially cited, or not cited. Statistical comparisons of accuracy proportions among models were performed using chi-squared tests.

Results: DeepSeek demonstrated the highest citation accuracy (78.6%, 22/35), followed by ChatGPT (51.4%, 18/35), and Copilot (51.4%, 18/35). Gemini showed the lowest accuracy (12.9%, 5/35). Differences in accuracy rates across models were statistically significant (χ² = 19.0, df = 3, p < 0.001). Expert validation confirmed DeepSeek’s relative advantage, with 42.9% (15/35) of its references classified as fully cited, compared with Copilot (20.0%, 7/35), ChatGPT (11.4%, 4/35), and Gemini (11.4%, 4/35). The most frequent error types were DOI mismatches and the generation of irrelevant or unverifiable references.

Conclusion: This pilot study indicates that contemporary AI models, particularly those like DeepSeek, show potential in assisting with citation generation. However, the observed error rates, including instances of hallucination, remain substantial. These findings underscore that rigorous human verification is indispensable when using AI for academic referencing in specialized medical fields, and highlight the need for continuous, version-specific benchmarking as these tools evolve.