Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38888919›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Performance of Large Language Models on Medical Oncology Examination Questions.

Jack B Longwell, Ian Hirsch, Fernando Binder, Galileo Arturo Gonzalez Conchas, Daniel Mau, Raymond Jang, Rahul G Krishnan, Robert C Grant

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 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Advances in LLM Reasoning Enable Flexibility in Clinical Problem-Solving.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Jack B LongwellPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ian HirschPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Fernando BinderPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Galileo Arturo Gonzalez ConchasPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Daniel MauPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Raymond JangPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rahul G KrishnanDepartment of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Robert C GrantPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Large language models (LLMs) recently developed an unprecedented ability to answer questions. Studies of LLMs from other fields may not generalize to medical oncology, a high-stakes clinical setting requiring rapid integration of new information. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy and safety of LLM answers on medical oncology examination questions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted between May 28 and October 11, 2023. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Oncology Self-Assessment Series on ASCO Connection, the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Examination Trial questions, and an original set of board-style medical oncology multiple-choice questions were presented to 8 LLMs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the percentage of correct answers. Medical oncologists evaluated the explanations provided by the best LLM for accuracy, classified the types of errors, and estimated the likelihood and extent of potential clinical harm. Results: Proprietary LLM 2 correctly answered 125 of 147 questions (85.0%; 95% CI, 78.2%-90.4%; P < .001 vs random answering). Proprietary LLM 2 outperformed an earlier version, proprietary LLM 1, which correctly answered 89 of 147 questions (60.5%; 95% CI, 52.2%-68.5%; P < .001), and the best open-source LLM, Mixtral-8x7B-v0.1, which correctly answered 87 of 147 questions (59.2%; 95% CI, 50.0%-66.4%; P < .001). The explanations provided by proprietary LLM 2 contained no or minor errors for 138 of 147 questions (93.9%; 95% CI, 88.7%-97.2%). Incorrect responses were most commonly associated with errors in information retrieval, particularly with recent publications, followed by erroneous reasoning and reading comprehension. If acted upon in clinical practice, 18 of 22 incorrect answers (81.8%; 95% CI, 59.7%-94.8%) would have a medium or high likelihood of moderate to severe harm. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of the performance of LLMs on medical oncology examination questions, the best LLM answered questions with remarkable performance, although errors raised safety concerns. These results demonstrated an opportunity to develop and evaluate LLMs to improve health care clinician experiences and patient care, considering the potential impact on capabilities and safety.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyCross-Sectional StudiesEducational MeasurementHumansLanguage

Identifiers

PMID38888919
PMCPMC11185976

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.