ArticleJAMA network open2024
Performance of Large Language Models on Medical Oncology Examination 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 46 papers.
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
46 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of large language models on the Japanese cardiovascular surgery board examination: a comparative analysis of eight contemporary AI models with educational implications.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- Incremental Diagnostic Value of Clinical Information for Large Language Models Across Multiple Organs: Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Performance of leading large language models in adhering to clinical guidelines for anaplastic thyroid cancer: a comparative study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Single-session agreement of ChatGPT and Gemini treatment recommendations with multidisciplinary tumor board decisions in thoracic oncology.BMC cancer · 2026Observational
- Article
- Structured reasoning failures compromise LLM interpretation of clinical oncology notes.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the clinical decision-making performance of large language models in clinically oriented thoracic anatomy scenarios: a comparative evaluation study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- A multicenter multifunctional assessment of large language models in pure-tone audiogram interpretation for patients.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating Large Language Models as Medical Consultation Tools for Double Eyelid Surgery: A Cross-Language Study in English and Chinese.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Multimodal large language models challenge NEJM image challenge.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Leveraging Large Language Models for Early Detection of Anomaly Work Injury Cases: Data-Driven Approach to Rehabilitation Efficiency.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2026Article
- Reasoning vs. conventional large language models for BI-RADS educational questions answering: a multi-model comparative evaluation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Knowledge localization is associated with higher performance of domestic large language models in a Chinese radiation oncology examination.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models on the radiation and cancer biology practice exam.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Error Detection in Complex Clinical Documentation: Leveraging Large Language Models to Enhance Patient Safety in Oncology.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2026Article
- Evaluating the clinical utility of large language models for hepatocellular carcinoma treatment recommendations: A nationwide retrospective registry study.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Advances in LLM Reasoning Enable Flexibility in Clinical Problem-Solving.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026Article
- From model failure to system harm: operationalizing a sociotechnical pathway for healthcare AI safety.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Performance of large language model in cross-specialty medical scenarios.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Enhancing Large Language Models for Improved Accuracy and Safety in Medical Question Answering: Comparative Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.