Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38304112›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2024

Exploring Capabilities of Large Language Models such as ChatGPT in Radiation Oncology.

Fabio Dennstädt, Janna Hastings, Paul Martin Putora, Erwin Vu, Galina F Fischer, Krisztian Süveg, Markus Glatzer, Elena Riggenbach, Hông-Linh Hà, Nikola Cihoric

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. In Reply to Sengul I and Sengul D.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. In Reply to Hsu et al.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Performance of ChatGPT on optometry and vision science exam questions.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. In Regard to Dennstädt et al.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  20. In Reply to Sengul I and Sengul D.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
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

10 authors.

Fabio DennstädtDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Janna HastingsSchool of Medicine, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Paul Martin PutoraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Erwin VuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Galina F FischerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Krisztian SüvegDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Markus GlatzerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Elena RiggenbachDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland.
Hông-Linh HàDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland.
Nikola CihoricDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Technological progress of machine learning and natural language processing has led to the development of large language models (LLMs), capable of producing well-formed text responses and providing natural language access to knowledge. Modern conversational LLMs such as ChatGPT have shown remarkable capabilities across a variety of fields, including medicine. These models may assess even highly specialized medical knowledge within specific disciplines, such as radiation therapy. We conducted an exploratory study to examine the capabilities of ChatGPT to answer questions in radiation therapy. Methods and Materials: A set of multiple-choice questions about clinical, physics, and biology general knowledge in radiation oncology as well as a set of open-ended questions were created. These were given as prompts to the LLM ChatGPT, and the answers were collected and analyzed. For the multiple-choice questions, it was checked how many of the answers of the model could be clearly assigned to one of the allowed multiple-choice-answers, and the proportion of correct answers was determined. For the open-ended questions, independent blinded radiation oncologists evaluated the quality of the answers regarding correctness and usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale. Furthermore, the evaluators were asked to provide suggestions for improving the quality of the answers. Results: For 70 multiple-choice questions, ChatGPT gave valid answers in 66 cases (94.3%). In 60.61% of the valid answers, the selected answer was correct (50.0% of clinical questions, 78.6% of physics questions, and 58.3% of biology questions). For 25 open-ended questions, 12 answers of ChatGPT were considered as "acceptable," "good," or "very good" regarding both correctness and helpfulness by all 6 participating radiation oncologists. Overall, the answers were considered "very good" in 29.3% and 28%, "good" in 28% and 29.3%, "acceptable" in 19.3% and 19.3%, "bad" in 9.3% and 9.3%, and "very bad" in 14% and 14% regarding correctness/helpfulness. Conclusions: Modern conversational LLMs such as ChatGPT can provide satisfying answers to many relevant questions in radiation therapy. As they still fall short of consistently providing correct information, it is problematic to use them for obtaining medical information. As LLMs will further improve in the future, they are expected to have an increasing impact not only on general society, but also on clinical practice, including radiation oncology.

Identifiers

PMID38304112
PMCPMC10831180

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.