Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38564215›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Quality of Large Language Model Responses to Radiation Oncology Patient Care Questions.

Amulya Yalamanchili, Bishwambhar Sengupta, Joshua Song, Sara Lim, Tarita O Thomas, Bharat B Mittal, Mohamed E Abazeed, P Troy Teo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 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

8 authors.

Amulya YalamanchiliRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Bishwambhar SenguptaRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Joshua SongRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Sara LimRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Tarita O ThomasRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Bharat B MittalRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Mohamed E AbazeedRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
P Troy TeoRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

Funding

A biomarker-driven strategy to guide the use of radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancerR37CA222294 · NCI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI ABAZEED, MOHAMED E. · 2018 to 2024
$2.5M
CIHRNCI NIH HHS R37 CA222294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) demonstrate potential in simulating human-like dialogue. Their efficacy in accurate patient-clinician communication within radiation oncology has yet to be explored. Objective: To determine an LLM's quality of responses to radiation oncology patient care questions using both domain-specific expertise and domain-agnostic metrics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study retrieved questions and answers from websites (accessed February 1 to March 20, 2023) affiliated with the National Cancer Institute and the Radiological Society of North America. These questions were used as queries for an AI LLM, ChatGPT version 3.5 (accessed February 20 to April 20, 2023), to prompt LLM-generated responses. Three radiation oncologists and 3 radiation physicists ranked the LLM-generated responses for relative factual correctness, relative completeness, and relative conciseness compared with online expert answers. Statistical analysis was performed from July to October 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The LLM's responses were ranked by experts using domain-specific metrics such as relative correctness, conciseness, completeness, and potential harm compared with online expert answers on a 5-point Likert scale. Domain-agnostic metrics encompassing cosine similarity scores, readability scores, word count, lexicon, and syllable counts were computed as independent quality checks for LLM-generated responses. Results: Of the 115 radiation oncology questions retrieved from 4 professional society websites, the LLM performed the same or better in 108 responses (94%) for relative correctness, 89 responses (77%) for completeness, and 105 responses (91%) for conciseness compared with expert answers. Only 2 LLM responses were ranked as having potential harm. The mean (SD) readability consensus score for expert answers was 10.63 (3.17) vs 13.64 (2.22) for LLM answers (P < .001), indicating 10th grade and college reading levels, respectively. The mean (SD) number of syllables was 327.35 (277.15) for expert vs 376.21 (107.89) for LLM answers (P = .07), the mean (SD) word count was 226.33 (191.92) for expert vs 246.26 (69.36) for LLM answers (P = .27), and the mean (SD) lexicon score was 200.15 (171.28) for expert vs 219.10 (61.59) for LLM answers (P = .24). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the LLM generated accurate, comprehensive, and concise responses with minimal risk of harm, using language similar to human experts but at a higher reading level. These findings suggest the LLM's potential, with some retraining, as a valuable resource for patient queries in radiation oncology and other medical fields.

Indexed as

Radiation OncologyArtificial IntelligenceCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLanguagePatient Care

Identifiers

PMID38564215
PMCPMC10988356

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.