Traditionally, abnormalities of the retinal vasculature and perfusion in retinal vascular disorders, such as diabetic retinopathy and retinal vascular occlusions, have been visualized with dye-based fluorescein angiography (FA). Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) is a newer, alternative modality for imaging the retinal vasculature, which has some advantages over FA, such as its dye-free, non-invasive nature, and depth resolution. The depth resolution of OCTA allows for characterization of the retinal microvasculature in distinct anatomic layers, and commercial OCTA platforms also provide automated quantitative vascular and perfusion metrics. Quantitative and qualitative OCTA analysis in various retinal vascular disorders has facilitated the detection of pre-clinical vascular changes, greater understanding of known clinical signs, and the development of imaging biomarkers to prognosticate and guide treatment. With further technological improvements, such as a greater field of view and better image quality processing algorithms, it is likely that OCTA will play an integral role in the study and management of retinal vascular disorders. Artificial intelligence methods—in particular, deep learning—show promise in refining the insights to be gained from the use of OCTA in retinal vascular disorders. This review aims to summarize the current literature on this imaging modality in relation to common retinal vascular disorders.

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 ≤8.4×10⁻³). 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 ≤1.4×10⁻²). 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.