ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Evaluating large language models on a highly-specialized topic, radiation oncology physics.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
65 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Applications and Concerns of ChatGPT and Other Conversational Large Language Models in Health Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Using natural language processing to analyze unstructured patient-reported outcomes data derived from electronic health records for cancer populations: a systematic review.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2024Pooled it
- Augmenting patient safety surveillance in radiation oncology with large language model-based root cause analysis: A proof-of-concept study.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Generative AI, foundation models and large language models in radiation therapy physics: Clinical applications, challenges, and future directions.Medical physics · 2026Review
- The complementary roles of oversight, education, and collaboration in the responsible integration of artificial intelligence in radiation medicine: White paper of CADRA.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Review
- Article
- Proposed Context-of-Use Evaluation Framework for Medication Management Tasks Completed by Generative Artificial Intelligence.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- An AI-assisted, failure mode-based toolkit for proactive risk management in radiotherapy: A feasibility study.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Leveraging large language models to populate structured clinical case report forms from unstructured medical notes in radiation oncology.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Large language models for bioinformatics.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2026Review
- A Survey on Medical Competence Evaluation Benchmarks for Large Language Models.Health care science · 2026Review
- CDTD-Agent: a retrieval-augmented multi-agent digital health framework for integrated diabetes care: a single-case expert-rated pilot study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models on the radiation and cancer biology practice exam.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Decoding high-order clinical correlations: a knowledge-driven large language model framework for specialized medical decision-making.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Personalizing prostate cancer education for patients using an EHR-Integrated LLM agent.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- PharmacyGPT: exploration of artificial intelligence for medication management in the intensive care unit.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessing ChatGPT-4 as a clinical decision support tool in neuro-oncology radiotherapy: a prospective comparative study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Performance of artificial intelligence chatbots in National dental licensing examination.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- RTPhy-ChatBot: A RAG-Based intelligent assistant for radiotherapy physics using LLaMA3 and AAPM reports.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.