ArticleJAMA network open2024
Performance of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Evaluated on Clinical Oncology Cases.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Comprehensive Decision Support Tool for Chemotherapy-Cycle Prescribing: Initial Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Trial
- AI Agents for Multimodal Oncology Diagnosis: Toward Transparent and Traceable Clinical Decision Support.JMIR cancer · 2026Review
- Comparative Performance of AI Models and Clinicians in Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Disease Management for People Living With HIV: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Large Language Models for Breast and Cervical Cancers Communication: Mixed Methods Evaluation Study Assessing Linguistic Quality, Safety, and Accessibility.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- A generative AI-enhanced intelligent service system with contextual retrieval and adaptive interaction for hospital use.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- AI chatbots for health information seeking among Chinese patients with precancerous ENT lesions: a descriptive qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Are AI chatbots ready for chikungunya public education? Evidence on validity, reliability, and readability.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT's Diagnostic Accuracy on Image-based Ophthalmic Case Interpretations.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- The effect of medical explanations from large language models on diagnostic accuracy in radiology.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Multimodal Diagnostic Accuracy of GPT-4.o, Claude 3.7, and Gemini 2.5 on Real-World Retina Cases.Journal of vitreoretinal diseases · 2026Article
- Multimodal artificial intelligence in urologic precision oncology: from algorithm to translational medicine (a systemized narrative review).Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Performance of large language model in cross-specialty medical scenarios.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Patient perceptions of empathy in physician and artificial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions about cancer.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Moving toward precision and personalized treatment strategies in psychiatry.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2025Review
- Diagnostic performance of multimodal large language models in radiological quiz cases: the effects of prompt engineering and input conditions.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Large Language Models' Concordance With Guidelines on Olfaction.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Large Language Model Applications for Health Information Extraction in Oncology: Scoping Review.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Accurate Information and Tasks in Gynecologic Oncology and Clinical Medicine-Dunning-Kruger Effects and Ultracrepidarianism.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Large language models in oncology: a review.BMJ oncology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots can process complex medical image and text-based information that may improve their accuracy as a clinical diagnostic and management tool compared with unimodal, text-only AI chatbots. However, the difference in medical accuracy of multimodal and text-only chatbots in addressing questions about clinical oncology cases remains to be tested. Objective: To evaluate the utility of prompt engineering (zero-shot chain-of-thought) and compare the competency of multimodal and unimodal AI chatbots to generate medically accurate responses to questions about clinical oncology cases. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study benchmarked the medical accuracy of multiple-choice and free-text responses generated by AI chatbots in response to 79 questions about clinical oncology cases with images. Exposures: A unique set of 79 clinical oncology cases from JAMA Network Learning accessed on April 2, 2024, was posed to 10 AI chatbots. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was medical accuracy evaluated by the number of correct responses by each AI chatbot. Multiple-choice responses were marked as correct based on the ground-truth, correct answer. Free-text responses were rated by a team of oncology specialists in duplicate and marked as correct based on consensus or resolved by a review of a third oncology specialist. Results: This study evaluated 10 chatbots, including 3 multimodal and 7 unimodal chatbots. On the multiple-choice evaluation, the top-performing chatbot was chatbot 10 (57 of 79 [72.15%]), followed by the multimodal chatbot 2 (56 of 79 [70.89%]) and chatbot 5 (54 of 79 [68.35%]). On the free-text evaluation, the top-performing chatbots were chatbot 5, chatbot 7, and the multimodal chatbot 2 (30 of 79 [37.97%]), followed by chatbot 10 (29 of 79 [36.71%]) and chatbot 8 and the multimodal chatbot 3 (25 of 79 [31.65%]). The accuracy of multimodal chatbots decreased when tested on cases with multiple images compared with questions with single images. Nine out of 10 chatbots, including all 3 multimodal chatbots, demonstrated decreased accuracy of their free-text responses compared with multiple-choice responses to questions about cancer cases. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of chatbot accuracy tested on clinical oncology cases, multimodal chatbots were not consistently more accurate than unimodal chatbots. These results suggest that further research is required to optimize multimodal chatbots to make more use of information from images to improve oncology-specific medical accuracy and reliability.
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.