Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39088019›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024

Large language models' responses to liver cancer surveillance, diagnosis, and management questions: accuracy, reliability, readability.

Jennie J Cao, Daniel H Kwon, Tara T Ghaziani, Paul Kwo, Gary Tse, Andrew Kesselman, Aya Kamaya, Justin R Tse

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
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.

Jennie J CaoDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Room H-1307, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Daniel H KwonDepartment of Medicine, San Francisco School of Medicine, University of California, 505 Parnassus Ave, MC1286C, San Francisco, CA, 94144, USA.
Tara T GhazianiDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 430 Broadway St MC 6341, Redwood City, CA, 94063, USA.
Paul KwoDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 430 Broadway St MC 6341, Redwood City, CA, 94063, USA.
Gary TseDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, 757 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Andrew KesselmanDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive Palo Alto, Stanford, CA, 94304, USA.
Aya KamayaDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Room H-1307, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Justin R TseDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Room H-1307, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. jrtse@stanford.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2408-3763

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the accuracy, reliability, and readability of publicly available large language models in answering fundamental questions on hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis and management.

methodsTwenty questions on liver cancer diagnosis and management were asked in triplicate to ChatGPT-3.5 (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), and Bing (Microsoft). Responses were assessed by six fellowship-trained physicians from three academic liver transplant centers who actively diagnose and/or treat liver cancer. Responses were categorized as accurate (score 1; all information is true and relevant), inadequate (score 0; all information is true, but does not fully answer the question or provides irrelevant information), or inaccurate (score - 1; any information is false). Means with standard deviations were recorded. Responses were considered as a whole accurate if mean score was > 0 and reliable if mean score was > 0 across all responses for the single question. Responses were also quantified for readability using the Flesch Reading Ease Score and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Readability and accuracy across 60 responses were compared using one-way ANOVAs with Tukey's multiple comparison tests.

resultsOf the twenty questions, ChatGPT answered nine (45%), Gemini answered 12 (60%), and Bing answered six (30%) questions accurately; however, only six (30%), eight (40%), and three (15%), respectively, were both accurate and reliable. There were no significant differences in accuracy between any chatbot. ChatGPT responses were the least readable (mean Flesch Reading Ease Score 29; college graduate), followed by Gemini (30; college) and Bing (40; college; p < 0.001).

conclusionLarge language models provide complex responses to basic questions on hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis and management that are seldomly accurate, reliable, or readable.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularComprehensionLiver NeoplasmsHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesArtificial intelligenceHepatocellular carcinomaLarge language modelLiver cancer

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.