ArticleDigital health
Assessing the performance of large language models (LLMs) in answering medical questions regarding breast cancer in the Chinese context.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and gemini responses to patient-oriented questions on breast cancer.PloS one · 2026Article
- Prompts, privacy, and personalized learning: integrating AI into nursing education-a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Delving into the Practical Applications and Pitfalls of Large Language Models in Medical Education: Narrative Review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Large language models (LLMs) are deep learning models designed to comprehend and generate meaningful responses, which have gained public attention in recent years. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the performance of LLMs in answering questions regarding breast cancer in the Chinese context. Material and Methods: ChatGPT, ERNIE Bot, and ChatGLM were chosen to answer 60 questions related to breast cancer posed by two oncologists. Responses were scored as comprehensive, correct but inadequate, mixed with correct and incorrect data, completely incorrect, or unanswered. The accuracy, length, and readability among answers from different models were evaluated using statistical software. Results: ChatGPT answered 60 questions, with 40 (66.7%) comprehensive answers and six (10.0%) correct but inadequate answers. ERNIE Bot answered 60 questions, with 34 (56.7%) comprehensive answers and seven (11.7%) correct but inadequate answers. ChatGLM generated 60 answers, with 35 (58.3%) comprehensive answers and six (10.0%) correct but inadequate answers. The differences for chosen accuracy metrics among the three LLMs did not reach statistical significance, but only ChatGPT demonstrated a sense of human compassion. The accuracy of the three models in answering questions regarding breast cancer treatment was the lowest, with an average of 44.4%. ERNIE Bot's responses were significantly shorter compared to ChatGPT and ChatGLM ( Conclusions: In the Chinese context, the capabilities of ChatGPT, ERNIE Bot, and ChatGLM are similar in answering breast cancer-related questions at present. These three LLMs may serve as adjunct informational tools for breast cancer patients in the Chinese context, offering guidance for general inquiries. However, for highly specialized issues, particularly in the realm of breast cancer treatment, LLMs cannot deliver reliable performance. It is necessary to utilize them under the supervision of 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.