Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38942093›Full record

ArticleJournal of pain and symptom management2024

AI-Generated Content in Cancer Symptom Management: A Comparative Analysis Between ChatGPT and NCCN.

David Lazris, Yael Schenker, Teresa Hagan Thomas

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pain and symptom management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Exploring young adult cancer survivors' perspectives on generative AI chatbots for symptom support.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

David LazrisDepartment of Medicine, (D.L, Y.C), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. Electronic address: lazrisdi@upmc.edu.
Yael SchenkerDepartment of Medicine, (D.L, Y.C), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Palliative Research Center (PaRC) and Department of Medicine, (Y.S, T.H.T), Division of General Internal Medicine, Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, (Y.S, T.H.T), Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, USA.
Teresa Hagan ThomasPalliative Research Center (PaRC) and Department of Medicine, (Y.S, T.H.T), Division of General Internal Medicine, Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Department of Health Promotion & Development, School of Nursing, (T.H.T), University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, (Y.S, T.H.T), Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

Extension of STRONG Study to Expand Intervention ImpactR37CA262025 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Teresa Hagan Thomas · 2021 to 2026
$3.7M
NCI NIH HHS R37 CA262025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence-driven tools, like ChatGPT, are prevalent sources for online health information. Limited research has explored the congruity between AI-generated content and professional treatment guidelines. This study seeks to compare recommendations for cancer-related symptoms generated from ChatGPT with guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

interventionWe extracted treatment recommendations for nine symptoms from NCCN, separated into four full Supportive Care sections and five subsections of the Palliative Care webpage. We entered "How can I reduce my cancer-related [symptom]" into ChatGPT- 3.5 for these same symptoms and extracted its recommendations. A comparative content analysis focused on recommendations for medications, consultations, and non-pharmacological strategies. We compared word count and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) readability for each NCCN and ChatGPT section. OUTCOMES: The mean percent agreement between NCCN and ChatGPT recommendations was 37.3% (range 16.7%-81.8%). NCCN offered more specific medication recommendations. ChatGPT did recommend medications in the constipation and diarrhea sections that were not recommended by NCCN. Significant differences in word count (P=0.03) and FKGL (P<0.01) were found for NCCN Supportive Care webpages, with ChatGPT having lower word count and reading level. In the NCCN Palliative Care webpage subsections, there was no significant difference in word count (P=0.076), but FKGL was significantly lower with ChatGPT (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED: While ChatGPT provides concise, accessible supportive care advice, discrepancies with guidelines raise concerns for patient-facing symptom management recommendations. Future research should consider how AI can be used in conjunction with evidence-based guidelines to support cancer patients' supportive care needs.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNeoplasmsPalliative CareHumansInternetPractice Guidelines as Topicaccessibility of health informationArtificial intelligencecancer symptom managementonline health contentsupportive care

Identifiers

PMID38942093
PMCPMC12105838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.