ArticleDigital health
ChatGPT v4 outperforming v3.5 on cancer treatment recommendations in quality, clinical guideline, and expert opinion concordance.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models could be applied in personalized out-of-hospital management for breast cancer: a prospective randomized single blind study.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Evaluation of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-4o as educational sources for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.Central European journal of urology · 2026Article
- Feeding intelligence: comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and clinical guidelines for nutritional management in head and neck cancer.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Chatbot assistance in precision oncology treatment decision-making.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Assessment of ChatGPT's adherence to evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for plantar fasciitis management.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Evaluating AI performance in infectious disease education: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT, Google Bard, Perplexity AI, Microsoft Copilot, and Meta AI.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence can Facilitate Application of Risk Stratification Algorithms to Bladder Cancer Patient Case Scenarios.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the quality and alignment of ChatGPT's cancer treatment recommendations (RECs) with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and expert opinions. Methods: Three urologists performed quantitative and qualitative assessments in October 2023 analyzing responses from ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 to 108 prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer prompts using two zero-shot prompt templates. Performance evaluation involved calculating five ratios: expert-approved/expert-disagreed and NCCN-aligned RECs against total ChatGPT RECs plus coverage and adherence rates to NCCN. Experts rated the response's quality on a 1-5 scale considering correctness, comprehensiveness, specificity, and appropriateness. Results: ChatGPT-4 outperformed ChatGPT-3.5 in prostate cancer inquiries, with an average word count of 317.3 versus 124.4 ( Conclusions: ChatGPT-4 demonstrated significant improvement in providing accurate and detailed treatment recommendations for urological cancers in line with clinical guidelines and expert opinion. However, it is vital to recognize that AI tools are not without flaws and should be utilized with caution. ChatGPT could supplement, but not replace, personalized advice from healthcare professionals.
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.