Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39661913›Full record

ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2024

Comparative Analysis of Generative Pre-Trained Transformer Models in Oncogene-Driven Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Introducing the Generative Artificial Intelligence Performance Score.

Zacharie Hamilton, Aseem Aseem, Zhengjia Chen, Noor Naffakh, Natalie M Reizine, Frank Weinberg, Shikha Jain, Larry G Kessler, Vijayakrishna K Gadi, Christopher Bun and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

11 authors.

Zacharie HamiltonUniversity of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0009-0009-0904-7220
Aseem AseemUniversity of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0009-0000-2940-5974
Zhengjia ChenUniversity of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0002-6301-4931
Noor NaffakhUniversity of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0001-5195-8313
Natalie M ReizineUniversity of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0001-9240-9943
Frank WeinbergUniversity of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0002-0094-3725
Shikha JainUniversity of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0002-5684-7898
Larry G KesslerUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Vijayakrishna K GadiUniversity of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0002-5427-7465
Christopher BunKirkland & Ellis, Chicago, IL.
Ryan H NguyenUniversity of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0002-8863-6649

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePrecision oncology in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) relies on biomarker testing for clinical decision making. Despite its importance, challenges like the lack of genomic oncology training, nonstandardized biomarker reporting, and a rapidly evolving treatment landscape hinder its practice. Generative artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, offers promise for enhancing clinical decision support. Effective performance metrics are crucial to evaluate these models' accuracy and their propensity for producing incorrect or hallucinated information. We assessed various ChatGPT versions' ability to generate accurate next-generation sequencing reports and treatment recommendations for NSCLC, using a novel Generative AI Performance Score (G-PS), which considers accuracy, relevancy, and hallucinations.

methodsWe queried ChatGPT versions for first-line NSCLC treatment recommendations with an Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted therapy, using a zero-shot prompt approach for eight oncogenes. Responses were assessed against National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for accuracy, relevance, and hallucinations, with G-PS calculating scores from -1 (all hallucinations) to 1 (fully NCCN-compliant recommendations). G-PS was designed as a composite measure with a base score for correct recommendations (weighted for preferred treatments) and a penalty for hallucinations.

resultsAnalyzing 160 responses, generative pre-trained transformer (GPT)-4 outperformed GPT-3.5, showing higher base score (90%

conclusionThis study highlights the rapid improvement of generative AI in matching treatment recommendations with biomarkers in precision oncology. Although the rate of hallucinations improved in the GPT-4 model, future generative AI use in clinical care requires high levels of accuracy with minimal to no room for hallucinations. The GP-S represents a novel metric quantifying generative AI utility in health care compared with national guidelines, with potential adaptation beyond precision oncology.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsOncogenesBiomarkers, TumorHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPrecision MedicineBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID39661913
PMCPMC11634130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.