Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39443582›Full record

ArticleNPJ precision oncology2024

Large language model use in clinical oncology.

Nicolas Carl, Franziska Schramm, Sarah Haggenmüller, Jakob Nikolas Kather, Martin J Hetz, Christoph Wies, Maurice Stephan Michel, Frederik Wessels, Titus J Brinker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Evaluation of GPT-5, a Large Language Model, in Replicating German Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations in Oral Oncology: A Cross-Sectional Concordance Study.Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

Nicolas Carl *Department of Digital Prevention, Diagnostics and Therapy Guidance, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Franziska Schramm *Department of Digital Prevention, Diagnostics and Therapy Guidance, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Sarah HaggenmüllerDepartment of Digital Prevention, Diagnostics and Therapy Guidance, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Jakob Nikolas KatherElse Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Martin J HetzDepartment of Digital Prevention, Diagnostics and Therapy Guidance, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Christoph WiesDepartment of Digital Prevention, Diagnostics and Therapy Guidance, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7136-298X
Maurice Stephan MichelDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karls University Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Frederik WesselsDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karls University Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4213-8692
Titus J BrinkerDepartment of Digital Prevention, Diagnostics and Therapy Guidance, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. titus.brinker@dkfz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3620-5919

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are undergoing intensive research for various healthcare domains. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses current applications, methodologies, and the performance of LLMs in clinical oncology. A mixed-methods approach was used to extract, summarize, and compare methodological approaches and outcomes. This review includes 34 studies. LLMs are primarily evaluated on their ability to answer oncologic questions across various domains. The meta-analysis highlights a significant performance variance, influenced by diverse methodologies and evaluation criteria. Furthermore, differences in inherent model capabilities, prompting strategies, and oncological subdomains contribute to heterogeneity. The lack of use of standardized and LLM-specific reporting protocols leads to methodological disparities, which must be addressed to ensure comparability in LLM research and ultimately leverage the reliable integration of LLM technologies into clinical practice.

Identifiers

PMID39443582
PMCPMC11499929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.