ArticleJAMA network open2024
Quality of Large Language Model Responses to Radiation Oncology Patient Care Questions.
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.
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
72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applications of large language models in tumor boards: a systematic review.Oncology reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Improving portability of knowledge-based planning using an LLM-driven plan refinement framework in lung radiotherapy.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Applying Large Language Models in Perioperative Medicine With an Equity-Informed Perspective.Anesthesia and analgesia · 2026Article
- AI-assisted software development for brachytherapy seed inventory management.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Augmenting patient safety surveillance in radiation oncology with large language model-based root cause analysis: A proof-of-concept study.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Large Language Models in Generating Physical Exercise Rehabilitation Programs for Musculoskeletal Disorders Across Multiple Clinical Scenarios.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Generative AI, foundation models and large language models in radiation therapy physics: Clinical applications, challenges, and future directions.Medical physics · 2026Review
- A multidimensional benchmarking framework for large language models in oncologic decision making.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Secure User Interface for Preclinical Evaluation of AI in Patient Portal Message Management: Tutorial.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- A patient-derived benchmark for evaluating large language models in connective tissue diseases: blinded multi-stakeholder assessment and guideline comparison.Rheumatology international · 2026Observational
- Utility of Large Language Models for Congenital Microtia Reconstruction Education: Comparison of the Performance of Claude, GPT, and Gemini.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- Large Language Models for Breast and Cervical Cancers Communication: Mixed Methods Evaluation Study Assessing Linguistic Quality, Safety, and Accessibility.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- The National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service: 50 years of service to the nation.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and transforming cancer care.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Leveraging large language models to populate structured clinical case report forms from unstructured medical notes in radiation oncology.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Using Large Language Models to Generate Dietary Feedback Similar to Human Experts in Weight Management: Experiments on Real-World Scenario Data.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
12 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
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.