ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Large language models' responses to liver cancer surveillance, diagnosis, and management questions: accuracy, reliability, readability.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of the readability of ChatGPT and Bard in medical communication: a meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Accuracy of Large Language Models When Answering Clinical Research Questions: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence and personalised medicine in liver cancer.Journal of hepatology · 2026Review
- Natural language processing and LLMs in liver imaging: a practical review of clinical applications.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Empowering liver cancer diagnosis and treatment with foundation models: technological innovation and clinical practice.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Review
- Large language models in hepatology: A systematic review.Hepatology forum · 2026Review
- Evaluating the clinical utility of large language models for hepatocellular carcinoma treatment recommendations: A nationwide retrospective registry study.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- AI-generated explanations in kidney transplantation: accuracy vs. readability and implications for patient education.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Temporal evolution of large language models (LLMs) in oncology.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Large language models as information providers for appropriate antimicrobial use: computational text analysis and expert-rated comparison of ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Reducing Hallucinations and Trade-Offs in Responses in Generative AI Chatbots for Cancer Information: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Revolutionizing MASLD: How Artificial Intelligence Is Shaping the Future of Liver Care.Cancers · 2025Review
- Application of large language models in disease diagnosis and treatment.Chinese medical journal · 2025Review
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
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
Identifiers
39088019What 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.