Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37529688›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Evaluating large language models on a highly-specialized topic, radiation oncology physics.

Jason Holmes, Zhengliang Liu, Lian Zhang, Yuzhen Ding, Terence T Sio, Lisa A McGee, Jonathan B Ashman, Xiang Li, Tianming Liu, Jiajian Shen and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Large language models for bioinformatics.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jason HolmesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Zhengliang LiuSchool of Computing, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States.
Lian ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Yuzhen DingDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Terence T SioDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Lisa A McGeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Jonathan B AshmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Xiang LiDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Tianming LiuSchool of Computing, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States.
Jiajian ShenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Wei LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.

Funding

4D Robust Optimization in Intensity-Modulated Proton TherapyK25CA168984 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI LIU, WEI · 2012 to 2015
$450k
NCI NIH HHS K25 CA168984
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: We present the first study to investigate Large Language Models (LLMs) in answering radiation oncology physics questions. Because popular exams like AP Physics, LSAT, and GRE have large test-taker populations and ample test preparation resources in circulation, they may not allow for accurately assessing the true potential of LLMs. This paper proposes evaluating LLMs on a highly-specialized topic, radiation oncology physics, which may be more pertinent to scientific and medical communities in addition to being a valuable benchmark of LLMs. Methods: We developed an exam consisting of 100 radiation oncology physics questions based on our expertise. Four LLMs, ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), ChatGPT (GPT-4), Bard (LaMDA), and BLOOMZ, were evaluated against medical physicists and non-experts. The performance of ChatGPT (GPT-4) was further explored by being asked to explain first, then answer. The deductive reasoning capability of ChatGPT (GPT-4) was evaluated using a novel approach (substituting the correct answer with "None of the above choices is the correct answer."). A majority vote analysis was used to approximate how well each group could score when working together. Results: ChatGPT GPT-4 outperformed all other LLMs and medical physicists, on average, with improved accuracy when prompted to explain before answering. ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) showed a high level of consistency in its answer choices across a number of trials, whether correct or incorrect, a characteristic that was not observed in the human test groups or Bard (LaMDA). In evaluating deductive reasoning ability, ChatGPT (GPT-4) demonstrated surprising accuracy, suggesting the potential presence of an emergent ability. Finally, although ChatGPT (GPT-4) performed well overall, its intrinsic properties did not allow for further improvement when scoring based on a majority vote across trials. In contrast, a team of medical physicists were able to greatly outperform ChatGPT (GPT-4) using a majority vote. Conclusion: This study suggests a great potential for LLMs to work alongside radiation oncology experts as highly knowledgeable assistants.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceChatGPTlarge language modelmedical physicsnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID37529688
PMCPMC10388568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.